Re: [Ietf-caldav] I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-caldav-11.txt (fwd)

[Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> Should we simply remove the claim about what RFC2616 says and  
>> continue to make these requirements?  (If not, do you have a  
>> proposal for solving the problem?)
>
> I think neither CalDAV nor RFC2518bis should make any statements  
> about this issue, but draft-whitehead-http-etag. This who care  
> about this issue should join the discussion on the HTTP mailing list.
>

Unfortunately, that just does not solve the problem for CalDAV, which  
is likely to have interoperability problems if we don't make firm  
requirements about modifying resources on PUT.  Relying on  
RFC2518bis, which has been through WG last call, is one thing;  
relying on the etag draft is another.

Lisa