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]

 



Hi.

I notice that draft-dusseault-caldav-12 now is in IESG Evaluation (<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11253>).

For the record: as far as I can tell, the issue that I raised below is critical (given the fact that we have a separate activity to clarify this in HTTP), and has not been addressed. It's not clear to me whether the client issue it attempts to solve really is important. If it is, there is a simpler way to accomplish this ([1]) that doesn't risk making CalDAV incompatible with other specs extending HTTP (or HTTP itself, for that matter).

Best regards,

Julian

[1] <http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/ietf-caldav/2006-April/000787.html>


Julian Reschke wrote:
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
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

How so?

A potential requirement of an XyzDav spec to return ETags even though the content was rewritten wouldn't be in conflict with HTTP at all. It would just be impossible to implement a resource that's both compliant to CalDAV and XyzDav.

This is why I think CalDav uses the wrong approach. There's a simple way to give CalDav clients that piece of information and which is guaranteed to be compatible with other specs, and that's what CalDav should do.

Or, alternatively, it could just stay silent and let that other spec work out the solution, instead of trying to come up with a fait accompli.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian

_______________________________________________

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




_______________________________________________

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]