- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:33:56 +0100
- To: Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Werner Baumann wrote: > Hello Julian, > > all your examples rely either on an extension protocol or on some > out-of-band agreement between server and client. But this is about pure > HTTP, without extensions and additional agreements. I'm not sure I understand; maybe you could be more specific. The examples I'm giving are all allowed by what RFC2616 says. > Extension protocols are free to make their own rules about when it is > sensible to send an etag and what it can be used for. Yes, but when they start making conflicting requirements (and they do), writing generic clients/libraries/middleware/intermediates becomes problematic. > My proposal > > When a server changes the body submitted in the PUT-request, it > > MUST NOT send an Etag-header in response, unless it knows that > > the client is aware of this changes and can handle them. > is meant to allow for just this freedom, but to prevent servers without > this additional knowledge from sending useless etags, what would render > all etags in PUT-responses useless for many clients. Of course there may > be a better wording. My understanding is that your proposal changes the semantics of RFC2616, breaks existing servers, and rules out lots of applications what work fine today. > The only use case, where a client can make use of the etag without > further knowledge and guarantee is DELETE. It suffices to know, that the > resource has not been modified by someone else in between. In all other > use cases, the client must know, whether there are manipulations by the > server that might conflict with what the client wants to do. That is incorrect (really!). There are many examples where servers do not store the content octet-by-octet, but strong ETags just work fine. You seem to argue from the POV of a WebDAV client implementor. There's nothing wrong with that, but filesystem-semantics-over-HTTP is just one out of many use cases. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2008 16:34:09 UTC