Re: ETags?

I agree with Julian.  This is an existing RFC-2616 issue,
not an issue introduced by the BIND specification, since:
- RFC-2616 explicitly states that two URIs can be mapped to the same 
- RFC-2616 is where entity tags are defined
Therefore whether or not two URIs that are mapped to the same resource
have the same entity tag is an existing RFC-2616 issue.

If there is current consensus on this question, then I'm OK with
adding a sentence to the bind specification about it.  But if there is
not consensus (and I suspect there is not), then I believe it makes
no sense to hold up the BIND specification because of an issue with the
etag specification in RFC-2616.


Julian wrote on 01/19/2005 03:18:38 AM:

[WRT whether or not the etag SHOULD/MUST be the same at different 

> That being said I do agree with the other comments Geoff made in 
> <> 

> -- I'm just not convinced that BIND needs to decide either way at this 
> stage of the standards process. Sometimes, when something is initially 
> submitted, being silent on a particular thing can be the right thing to 
> do. In particular, this seems to be an issue that actually affects 
> RFC2616 itself and possibly should be clarified there.

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 12:14:24 UTC