Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

• From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>
• Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:11:02 -0800
• To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
• Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <CE46B9D4-F74D-4843-81A6-C783F482A78C@cs.ucsc.edu>

>

Julian,

Thanks for making this more clear -- you're right, there is a  
significant issue here.

> The question here is whether an ETag returned upon PUT is for the  
> entity the client sent (1), or for the entity the server would send  
> upon a subsequent GET (2).
>
> There are cases where both will not be the same, so this needs to  
> be clarified. In case of (2), a client will need a subsequent GET  
> if it's planning to use the ETag for subsequent GET/Range requests.
>

I think option #2 is the best one here (the Etag returned by PUT is  
the one a subsequent GET would retrieve).

- Jim

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 02:11:34 UTC