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

Cyrus Daboo schrieb:
> Hi Julian,
> 
> --On June 5, 2006 8:30:25 PM +0200 Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke <at> gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> I notice that draft-dusseault-caldav-12 now is in IESG Evaluation
>> (<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag
>> =11253>).
>>
>> For the record: as far as I can tell, the issue that I raised below is
>> critical (given the fact that we have a separate activity to clarify this
>> in HTTP), and has not been addressed. It's not clear to me whether the
>> client issue it attempts to solve really is important. If it is, there is
>> a simpler way to accomplish this ([1]) that doesn't risk making CalDAV
>> incompatible with other specs extending HTTP (or HTTP itself, for that
>> matter).
> 
> We are planning on addressing this ETag issue in a revision now that 
> last-call is over. Authors are discussing right now.

The new text says 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-caldav-13.html#rfc.section.5.3.4.p.2>):

"A response to a GET request targeted at a calendar object resource MUST 
contain an ETag response header field indicating the current value of 
the strong entity tag of the calendar object resource.

Servers SHOULD return a strong entity tag (ETag header) in a PUT 
response when the stored calendar object resource is equivalent by octet