Re: [Simple] WGLC: XCAP Base

[Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen at dynamicsoft.com>]

inline.

Miguel Garcia wrote:

> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your comments, Jari. Responses inline.
> >
> > Jari Urpalainen wrote:
> >
> > > A few comments/questions.
> > >
> > > 8.5 Managing Etags
> > >
> > > As Jonathan has interpreted (complying with rfc2616) that a node or 
> > > even an attribute of an xml-document can be regarded as a resource is 
> > > it allowable to send the document ETag after partial delete which is 
> > > then actually an ETag of a different resource ?
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know. I fear that the answer is no; after a DELETE, the 
> > resource is deleted, so by definition THAT resource doesn't have an 
> > etag anymore.
>
>
> Although I agree, one can think of a few tricks that would help to 
> transport the new etag of the new version of the document. For instance, 
>  you can think of first allocating a new etag to the resource to be 
> deleted, then executing the delete operation. The 200 OK for the DELETE 
> contains the etag of the resource right before its deletion. This 
> happens to be the etag of the new remaining document.

Thats not a valid usage of etag.

> I also found that RFC 2616 says:
>
> "In order to be legal, a strong entity tag MUST change whenever the 
> associated entity value changes in any way."
>
> Does "in any way" include "when the resource is deleted? I am trying to 
> find if it is fine to create a new entity value for a deleted resource.

I doubt it, but again, will ask around while here.

> > > I would certainly prefer that it is still being sent as otherwise you 
> > > introduce a second deficiency into safe updates of the document (the 
> > > first one being partial append). 
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what ability we have to mandate this. Since we're using 
> > HTTP, its going to depend on what HTTP says. I looked around for any 
> > text which talks about etags in DELETE responses, and didnt see anything.
>
>
> I looked around and I didn't see that is forbidden. On the other hand, I 
> suspect that in an XCAP server modeled as a layer of an HTTP stack and 
> an XCAP application, the XCAP application will choose the etag value and 
> pass it through an internal API to the HTTP stack; the HTTP stack will 
> encod it in a Etag header according to HTTP. In other words, since the 
> value of the Etag is selected by the XCAP application and pass to the 
> HTTP stack, we don't break HTTP by including it in a 200 OK for a DELETE 
> response. Comments?

Just because an API might allow it, doesnt mean its right or a good idea.

-Jonathan R.

--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen at dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple