 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 typeSilent, 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).
BR, Julian
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.