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