Re: PUT vs strong ETags

Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 11:05 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> If a server like this would return an ETag upon PUT, would it apply to 
>> the PUT request body, or the server's internal representation returned 
>> in a subsequent GET?
> I think that the simple rule is that when responding to a PUT, if the
> server returns an Etag, then it should be the same value that would have
> been returned in a GET of the resource that immediately followed the
> PUT.

Somebody else pointed out in the meantime that the same question applies 
to Last-Modified.

Anyway, if this is what everybody agrees upon, this IMHO should be put 
into the RFC2616 errata.

Also, it means that an ETag obtained from a PUT response can not be used 
as validator in byte-range operations, right? That may come as a 
surprise to some ;-)

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:26:28 UTC