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]

 




On Jun 20, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:

  Not really, no.

HTTP defines ETag. An HTTP server should be able to use the same ETag logic on all HTTP resources, and not treat ETags for calendar resources differently than others. Not all users of ETags are going to be aware that calendar resources are special.

My concern is that if there is *any* inconsistency between the general solution when it comes and CalDAV's, that an implementor may have to choose between being compliant with CalDAV or the more general ETag spec, or may have to continue to implement special semantics on calendar resources for purposes which are better served by the other spec.

I realize that "the other spec" doesn't exist today, and that this is a total drag. Can't we take your one paragraph and put it into its own document? I don't know IETF process very well, so I don't know what the next steps should be, but as an implementor, I'm uncomfortable with the prospect of dealing with two independently written specifications for the same behavior.

We basically tried that. What it turned into was this <http:// www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt> with no consensus on the basic model or apparent drive to come to consensus. Got any feedback on that draft?

Lisa


	-wsv


On Jun 20, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

Wilfredo, does it make a difference that CalDAV specifies special ETag behavior only on Calendar Component resource items (not for all HTTP resources)?



_______________________________________________

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]