RE: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt
Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Fri, 03 March 2006 05:27 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FF2pM-0001S8-W3; Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:27:44 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FF2pL-0001RB-Ul for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:27:43 -0500
Received: from scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FF2pI-0003tF-CL for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:27:43 -0500
Received: from scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse1 [133.2.253.16]) by scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k235Qtd17971; Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:26:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 09fd_53f166de_aa76_11da_8e21_0014221fa3c9; Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:26:55 +0900
Received: from EBOSHIIWA.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k235P4BL018742; Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:25:47 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060303111728.09199410@localhost>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:19:24 +0900
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, 'WebDAV' <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <000301c63e4f$988cca60$46832099@corp.adobe.com>
References: <4406A8D3.5000602@gmx.de> <000301c63e4f$988cca60$46832099@corp.adobe.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Cc:
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org
A very tiny adjustment below. But since HTTP (RFC 2616) is still at Draft Standard, couldn't this kind of clarification be added in when going to Standard? Or is that the plan? At 08:18 06/03/03, Larry Masinter wrote: >So, I'd suggest a couple of things: > >(a) any server response for a successful PUT may contain > an ETag header (200 and 204 as well as 201). >(b) If a strong ETag is returned, then the client can > assume that the data was stored exactly as sent. I think that should read "If a strong ETag is returned, then the client can assume that the data will subsequently be served exactly as sent." How the data is stored is purely the server's business (and (c) uses the right language). Regards, Martin. >(c) If the server modifies the data before storing it > in a way that it cannot guarantee a byte-for-byte > copy in a subsequent GET, it shouldn't use strong eTags.
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt Julian Reschke
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt Larry Masinter
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt Martin Duerst