Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

I agree with Julian's meta-comment.  This is an interesting issue,
but it is clear that it is controversial (and the consensus
solution non-obvious), therefore I believe it is also clear that we
should not try to resolve it in 2518bis.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 12/20/2005 04:12:24 AM:

> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> > ...
> > So unless we are going to disallow servers from modifying the
> > content stored from a PUT (note that our server does not do this,
> > so I am speaking as a neutral party here :-), we pretty much
> > have to have PUT return the entity tag of the content that was
> > PUT, not what would be returned by the GET.
> > ...
> 
> As a meta comment:
> 
> I note here's another experienced person who interprets ETag-upon-PUT 
> differently than people on the HTTP mailing list. *If* RFC2518bis wants 
> to make normative statements about ETags in PUT, it MUST resolve this 
> issue, and in a way that won't conflict with future revisions of 
RFC2616.
> 
> At this point I firmly believe that we can't deliver RFC2518bis in time, 

> unless we drop all changes introducing new requirements that are 
> non-controversial.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> 
> 
>