[mdx] mdq issue #9: etag in conditional GET

[Ian Young]

On 14 Jun 2014, at 21:44, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:

> I had that question a few times. If we're mandating clients support ETag,
> then I think the other is redundant, and aparently also actually precluded
> anyway.
> 
> If not, then obviously that means the server has to send both.

I'm finding the new HTTP RFCs explain this stuff a lot better than the original 1999 one did, so I may have something to add to this once I have finished ploughing through them.

For now, though, a couple of questions:

For Scott: does the Shibboleth SP implementation make use of ETag if it's provided? Would it take advantage of anything else if ETag was not provided?

For everyone: can anyone think of any reason not to require clients to support ETag (which is the same as saying that the server only needs to support it, and not anything else, which probably simplifies it a little).

	-- Ian



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5943 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.iay.org.uk/pipermail/mdx-iay.org.uk/attachments/20140616/14a2bcda/attachment.bin>