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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf