Pablo Castro wrote:
+1
That would solve the scenarios we've been struggling with lately.
In the context of Astoria we'd produce week ETags if we can't
guarantee full coverage of the values that form a resource.
Two "style" questions about how to proceed:
-Does it seem reasonable to go ahead and include this in the
implementation at this point? In the end, somebody has to go first :)
I don't think that would be a problem.
If you fear doing something RFC2616 says you shouldn't, there's a
workaround you may want to consider: instead of RFC2616's "If-*"
headers, use the "If" header defined in WebDAV (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.10.4
>).
This one lets you do the checks you need, even with weak entity tags.
-About adding the clarification itself, how does that happen? We've
been trying hard to avoid being "creating" about interpreting
specs, so if we'll introduce this change in the implementation it
would be great to know the path from now until the clarification
makes it to the right place.
In general, I see it like this:
a) raise the issue over here on the mailing list (done)
b) get rough consensus that we should do something (partly done)
c) get it onto the issues list (I think it's part of issue 101, <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/101
>)
d) achieve rough consensus for new text
e) editors apply change, new draft is published some time later
...
x) IESG Last Call
y) IESG approval
z) RFC publication
(I omitted a few steps :-)
BR, Julian