John C Klensin wrote:
1) the client can't control whether the etag will be strong,
and weak etags may work just fine in certain instances, so
just be silent about the type
Silent, no. But saying "can't control... certain instances"
explicitly would be fine. I'd be even happier with an
explanation of what such an instance might look like, but don't
see that as a requirement.
It's up to the server to decide whether it provides strong or weak
etags. And it's also up to the server to decide whether you can use them
in a conditional PATCH request (RFC 2616 disallowed this, but HTTPbis is
lifting that restriction, and furthermore WebDAV never had it).
I think not stating this explicitly is the simplest approach (as this is
true for any HTTP method), but I wouldn't object to have more text
either (as long as that text wouldn't have to revised when HTTPbis is done).
Ietf mailing list