Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt> from James M Snell on 2014-09-12 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2014)

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:39:22 -0500
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbd2LDdx8o2Nqjg+aumQD5f6PZmf4tZTZPvGTJTPbQrc9w@mail.gmail.com>

So long as the integrity check is optional, that would be fine... it
just won't work with some patch formats (e.g. JSON Merge Patch [1] ).

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch-07

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 September 2014 07:16, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>> At the very least, if we do this, some kind of integrity check (ie:
>> a MD5 checksum or similar) should be included in the scheme, so
>> that the client can check that the patch operation gave the right
>> result.
>
> Yes.  ETag doesn't cut it for this.
>

Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 14:40:11 UTC