- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:37:17 +0100
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 5:56 AM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org > Subject: RE: Summary of If header eval tests > > > > Julian it's great that you've done this research. It helps to get some > real data into our planning! Thanks. > > So contrary to what we believed, protecting conditional PUTs using strong > > etags currently does not interoperate well at all. > > > > How do we move forward on this issue? > > I'm not sure. Here's my guess: > - Decide that preventing lost updates is actually important I don't think we need to decide that :-) > - Decide that strong ETags is the only way to do that effectively ...the best... > - Exhort server implementors to do a better job of Etags and If header > - Put the tests in Litmus -- which I understand you're already doing -- > and announce Nope, I'm currently not doing it. Joe Orton, are you listening? > - Hold another interoperability event where we record the results of > this effort > > That holds back draft standard until we can hold another interop event, > but if we hold another summer interop as we have the last two years, > draft standard would probably take that long anyway. > > Any other ideas? I think it's sufficient to add the test cases to Litmus and make sure that clients submit correct If headers. This can be tested without a specific face-to-face meeting... Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 07:37:49 UTC