On 7/25/06, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote:
Again, this profiles HTTP in a way that may turn out to be incompatible with the way the issue will be resolved in general; also this conflicts with ETag requirements in XCAP, which is also under IESG evaluation. By all means, please let this issue be clarified in a *single* place and in a way consistent for all HTTP resources.
Neither draft obsoletes RFC2616, right? It seems obviously inappropriate for either draft to redefine ETag. If the protocols need something HTTP doesn't provide, they can mint a new header name, rather than base the semantics of the ETag response header on the results of a previous request. Wouldn't it be easier send "Sync: OK" or something? -- Robert Sayre _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf