Re: [Ietf-caldav] Last Call comment on Etag requirements in draft-dusseault-caldav-12

On Jun 20, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:

>   Not really, no.
>
>   HTTP defines ETag.  An HTTP server should be able to use the same  
> ETag logic on all HTTP resources, and not treat ETags for calendar  
> resources differently than others.  Not all users of ETags are  
> going to be aware that calendar resources are special.
>
>   My concern is that if there is *any* inconsistency between the  
> general solution when it comes and CalDAV's, that an implementor  
> may have to choose between being compliant with CalDAV or the more  
> general ETag spec, or may have to continue to implement special  
> semantics on calendar resources for purposes which are better  
> served by the other spec.
>
>   I realize that "the other spec" doesn't exist today, and that  
> this is a total drag.  Can't we take your one paragraph and put it  
> into its own document?  I don't know IETF process very well, so I  
> don't know what the next steps should be, but as an implementor,  
> I'm uncomfortable with the prospect of dealing with two  
> independently written specifications for the same behavior.

We basically tried that.  What it turned into was this <http:// 
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt> with  
no consensus on the basic model or apparent drive to come to  
consensus.  Got any feedback on that draft?

Lisa

>
> 	-wsv
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
>> Wilfredo, does it make a difference that CalDAV specifies special  
>> ETag behavior only on Calendar Component resource items (not for  
>> all HTTP resources)?
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf