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]

 



Sure, OK, so some clients are broken today because they make some assumptions that are only valid on some server implementations.
  We know we need a solution; I just don't agree that CalDAV is the  
right place to specify it.  I do understand how it's convenient.
	-wsv


On Jun 19, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

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.

_______________________________________________

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

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

  Powered by Linux