W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: 54th IETF Meeting Information, and RFC2518 open issues

From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:39:02 -0400
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Cc: "'Webdav WG (E-mail)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OFB44E3123.3D9FC346-ON85256BA6.006AA5D0@pok.ibm.com>

   Greg's posting didn't point out anything that can't be done without the
ETag support in the IF: header.   That's why he ended his posting with:

> Arguably, the semantic could be manufactured with other combinations, but
> I'd suggest that is your use case.

If you know of another case that he told you about off line, please share

If anyone actually knows of a client that actually uses the IF: etag
feature, then please point it out.


Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com

                      Stefan Eissing                                                                                                     
                      <stefan.eissing@gre        To:       Jason Crawford/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                               
                      enbytes.de>                cc:       "'Webdav WG (E-mail)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>                                
                      Sent by:                   Subject:  Re: 54th IETF Meeting Information, and RFC2518 open issues                    
                      04/25/2002 01:14 PM                                                                                                

Am Donnerstag den, 25. April 2002, um 17:38, schrieb Jason Crawford:

>>>> Having never encountered a client using them, I propose to
>>>> drop ETags in IF headers.
>>> OK; if we drop ETags in If headers how are servers intended to handle
>>> requests using the old syntax, or do you believe that is not an
>>> issue (if
>>> so, why)?
>> We can handle this similar to the "keepalive" body for COPY requests.
> Obviously if no clients use it, it's not a big issue, but please
> explain
> further.

As I wrote earlier today, Greg changed my mind on this matter.
There is a use case which cannot be covered by existing HTTP features.

So I'd vote for keeping the If: header as it is.

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 15:48:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:25 UTC