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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 19 June 2006 19:41 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsPcf-0002EX-Nu; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:41:21 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsPce-0002Cx-8E for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:41:20 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.21] helo=mail.gmx.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsPcc-0007Ul-SU for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:41:20 -0400
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2006 19:41:17 -0000
Received: from p508FBF90.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.178.22]) [80.143.191.144] by mail.gmx.net (mp042) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2006 21:41:17 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
Message-ID: <4496FDDD.8010405@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:41:17 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
References: <D58B890CEBB86771C83E8401@Cyrus-Daboo.local> <443FAB85.8030503@gmx.de> <7246CAD3-9329-4B34-8D23-08B196E80EDE@osafoundation.org> <443FEF47.3050406@gmx.de> <5FD8AADA-F91A-4B1F-9453-01178901DB6F@osafoundation.org> <443FF7B9.3050801@gmx.de> <7D5DE367-5FD8-4398-849D-2158EF6BC256@osafoundation.org> <443FFE81.6010605@gmx.de> <CD95571B-E80E-4DA4-A522-23C0647CF6B6@osafoundation.org> <4440AC2D.2050802@gmx.de> <44509D3B.4050503@gmx.de> <DBB5A293-8F91-4E39-BE97-B6BD5236F5A3@osafoundation.org> <44512C9B.6090102@gmx.de> <44847841.8080902@gmx.de> <074E50A7C8A95FFDB5E8B5E6@Cyrus-Daboo.local> <44913E39.7040503@gmx.de> <A53A3668-1C4B-46B2-BE5C-02F3F8D7D45E@apple.com> <4136E0DE-F4F4-4A6E-9AC0-1C6297910ECA@osafoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <4136E0DE-F4F4-4A6E-9AC0-1C6297910ECA@osafoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Cc: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, ietf@ietf.org, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-caldav] Last Call comment on Etag requirements in draft-dusseault-caldav-12
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Lisa Dusseault schrieb:
> 
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:
> 
>>   I agree with Julian.
>>
>>   As we've mentioned before, Apache returns a weak ETag on PUT, which 
>> turns into a strong ETag sometime later.  If clients rely on being 
>> able to use that ETag on a GET later, they won't work with Apache, and 
>> IIRC, Apache is pretty popular.
>>
>>   The ETag requirements in the draft are what many clients authors 
>> might *like* to be the common case, but it is most certainly not so 
>> today.
> 
> It's worse than that; many client authors *assumed* that to be the case, 
> and implemented and deployed their clients assuming that if the client 
> receives a strong ETag in response to a PUT, it has no further work to 
> do to synchronize that resource.  So the deployed base says that *is* 
> the case today.  I don't feel our document makes this situation any 
> worse than the deployed base of clients already does.
> 
> Lisa

Again: do you have any evidence of *shipping* clients making that 
assumption?

Best regards, Julian



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