- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:59:32 -0700
- To: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 20, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote: > Not really, no. > > HTTP defines ETag. An HTTP server should be able to use the same > ETag logic on all HTTP resources, and not treat ETags for calendar > resources differently than others. Not all users of ETags are > going to be aware that calendar resources are special. > > My concern is that if there is *any* inconsistency between the > general solution when it comes and CalDAV's, that an implementor > may have to choose between being compliant with CalDAV or the more > general ETag spec, or may have to continue to implement special > semantics on calendar resources for purposes which are better > served by the other spec. > > I realize that "the other spec" doesn't exist today, and that > this is a total drag. Can't we take your one paragraph and put it > into its own document? I don't know IETF process very well, so I > don't know what the next steps should be, but as an implementor, > I'm uncomfortable with the prospect of dealing with two > independently written specifications for the same behavior. We basically tried that. What it turned into was this <http:// www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt> with no consensus on the basic model or apparent drive to come to consensus. Got any feedback on that draft? Lisa > > -wsv > > > On Jun 20, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > >> Wilfredo, does it make a difference that CalDAV specifies special >> ETag behavior only on Calendar Component resource items (not for >> all HTTP resources)? >
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2006 23:59:40 UTC