- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:15:19 +0200
- To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>, "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Eric, if RFC2518bis requires ETag support, old, otherwise RFC2518-compliant and non-ETag-supporting servers will not be compliant to RFC2518bis. So something that was fully compliant before, isn't in the with the revision. I don't think this is allowed at this publication stage. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Eric Sedlar > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:04 PM > To: Stefan Eissing > Cc: Webdav WG > Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > > > I still don't see how if RFC2518bis requires ETag support it would > invalidate existing servers. Clients will continue to support ETag-less > servers to support an older version of the WebDAV spec, until ETag-less > servers are phased out. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> > To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com> > Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org> > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:07 AM > Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > > > > > Am Mittwoch den, 18. September 2002, um 09:09, schrieb Eric Sedlar: > > > > > > > > RFC2518bis wouldn't invalidate a class of servers if it includes a > > > new token > > > in the DAV: header to indicate support for RFC2518bis. Clients > > > would still > > > have to deal with no-Etag servers to support RFC2518, but this might > > > accellerate implementation of Etags. > > > > But support for ETag on a resource is visible on the getETag Property. > > What better place to look for ETag support than there? > > > > //Stefan > > > > > > > --Eric > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> > > > To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:57 PM > > > Subject: RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > > > > > > > >> > > >> I have no objection to such a warning (in fact, it sounds > > >> like a good idea to me). But I agree with Julian > > >> that RFC2518bis should not invalidate a whole class of > > >> valid 2518 servers, even for a worthy cause such as ETag support. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Geoff > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Eric Sedlar [mailto:eric.sedlar@oracle.com] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:47 PM > > >> To: Clemm, Geoff; Webdav WG > > >> Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > >> > > >> > > >> As long as you don't mind a client saying something to the effect of: > > >> > > >> "This server does not support the minimal level of functionality that > > >> <product> requires of a WebDAV server (ETags). We strongly > > >> discourage you > > >> from using this server, as you may lose work." > > >> > > >> when it points at your server, then go ahead and don't support ETags. > > >> > > >> --Eric > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> > > >> To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:50 AM > > >> Subject: RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> I agree. > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:58 AM > > >>> To: Lisa Dusseault; Webdav WG > > >>> Subject: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > >>>> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 8:14 PM > > >>>> To: Webdav WG > > >>>> Subject: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > >>>> > > >>>> ... > > >>>> - Be clear in spec that servers MUST do ETags. Explain how > > >>>> necessary > > >>>> this is to solve the lost update problem. > > >>>> .. > > >>> > > >>> ETags are a good thing, correct. However, HTTP (RFC2616) doesn't > > >>> require > > >>> them, RFC2518 doesn't require them, and they '*aren't* required for > > >>> interoperability. So there's no way to require them in > > >>> RFC2518bis -- it > > >>> would break all servers that don't have them. > > >>> > > >>> Julian > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 14:15:52 UTC