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

RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:11:13 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCIEAOFGAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:53 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
> > If a server that complies to RFC2518 doesn't comply to RFC2518bis,
> then
> > we've broken the IETF publication process, haven't we?
> I don't think that's necessarily true.  I checked with my local IAB
> member, and we don't think it's forbidden to upgrade a standard from
> Proposed Standard to Draft Standard, even if in the process the standard
> becomes somewhat more stringent in what constitutes compliance from
> implementations. (He says particularly if the requirement is a SHOULD
> now.)  It's a difficult judgement call, and one must weigh the

But it isn't a SHOULD right now.

RFC2518 says:

"The getetag property MUST be defined on any DAV compliant resource that
returns the Etag header."

So if I have an HTTP resource for which HEAD/GET wouldn't return an ETag
header, it's absolutely OK not to return the DAV:getetag property.

> interoperability concerns of both making and not making the change. But
> in principle, it's not forbidden.
> Our ADs will certainly weigh in on this when we've hashed it out more
> amongst ourselves, but in the meantime we shouldn't have to restrict
> ourselves rigidly in this matter.

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 15:11:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:26 UTC