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]

Re: [Ietf-caldav] Last Call comment on Etag requirements in draft-dusseault-caldav-12




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


lisa

On Jun 19, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:

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 mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.