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