Re: ETags and concurrency control

["Mark Baker" <distobj@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Henrik Nordstrom
<henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  On mån, 2008-04-28 at 13:44 +0200, Robert Siemer wrote:
>
>  > That raises three issues:
>  >
>  > 1) It's not in RFC2616 (weak comparison for non-GET) and so it's not on
>  >    RFC2616bis charta.
>
>  Not convinced. The current limitations on weak etags is just silly with
>  the exception of If-Range..
>
>  In my view it's a specification error that validators based on
>  Last-Modified is allowed in more places than weak etag based ones.

Well said.  The meaning of any non-range conditional request message
using a weak validator is unambiguous.

So would this be a "clarify conformance criteria" fix per the charter?
 Those MUST NOTs seem to make no sense AFAICT, unless there's
implementation issues I'm not aware of.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com