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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thanks for the input. Speaking as a document author here, I'm confident we've made a decent set of tradeoffs, balancing possible risks against benefits, and attempting to minimize the risks too.

The basic risk is that any requirements related to ETags may conflict with future requirements. We've attempted to minimize this risk by making only one requirement -- that servers MUST NOT return strong ETags if they have changed the data provided to be stored. We believe that this requirement is quite within the spirit of ETag design. We didn't make any requirements about weak ETags, nor did we require any behavior that future specs might make illegal. Since today with HTTP it's perfectly acceptable not to return an ETag at all, future requirements on ETags would at least have to work with a huge deployed base of HTTP servers that don't return any ETag on PUT responses.

Thus, any future ETag-related requirements that invalidated this CalDAV requirement, would also conflict with the huge deployed base of HTTP. I find that sufficiently unlikely as to be an acceptable risk to take. Any standard we write has some risk of making requirements that are in conflict with future spec requirements and so we always take this kind of risk.

I do hope that new work on ETags and PUT will clarify this situation further for all protocols, and if it becomes desirable to re-issue CalDAV to make use of that general work, I'll be happy to re-issue it.

Lisa

On Apr 27, 2006, at 3:30 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

Hi,

I note that draft 12 of caldav still makes requirements that are potentially incompatible with HTTP:

Quoting <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault- caldav-12.html#rfc.section.5.3.4.p.4>:

"In the case where the data stored by a server as a result of a PUT request is not equivalent by octet equality to the submitted calendar object resource, the behavior of the ETag response header is undefined, with the exception that a strong entity tag MUST NOT be returned in the response. As a result, clients may need to retrieve the modified calendar object resource (and ETag) as a basis for further changes, rather than use the calendar object resource it had sent with the PUT request."

This is a requirement that is not in RFC2616. Adding this to CalDav may make it impossible to implement resources that are both compliant to CalDav and other HTTP based specifications (which may have a different opinion about ETags in PUT responses).

If CalDav clients *really* require knowledge about this situation, please define it in a way that will not potentially be in conflict with other specifications, such as by adding a *new* response header, indicating that content was not rewritten (as proposed in <http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/ietf-caldav/2006-April/ 000787.html> two weeks ago).

Best regards, Julian

_______________________________________________
Ietf-caldav mailing list -- Ietf-caldav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
See http://ietf.webdav.org/caldav/ for more CalDAV resources
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-caldav


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]