Subject: [Bug 13] new ETag requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:13:01 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13

[email-masked] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|-09                         |-10

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2006-01-15 06:13 -------
I have followed up on last year's thread on the HTTP WG mailing list, see
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006JanMar/0000.html>.

That being said, in case we don't get a consensus over there, I think normative
language about PUT vs ETags needs to be removed from RFC2518bis. I've done that
in my version of the draft (see
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#rfc.issue.bz013>).

I'd like to delay a discussion about PROPPATCH vs ETags until the PUT question
is clarified (in which case I think consequences for PROPPATCH will be obvious).

Finally, I'd like to point out that draft 10 of RFC2518bis and draft 09 of
CalDAV
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-caldav-09.html#rfc.section.5.3.3>)
have conflicting normative requirements, which really should tell us something.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.