On ti, 2008-03-04 at 12:20 -0800, ext Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Then I'd appreciate any suggestion to make it clearer. > > Explicitly state that in the case I described that it's permissible > to deliver the same Etag in the first and third versions.
Something like in S 5.3: The subscriber MUST be prepared to receive a NOTIFY with any entity-tag value, including a value that matches any previous value that the subscriber might have seen. > > > Given that when I asked this question I got two different answers from > > > Dale and Dean, I submit that the draft might be improved by directly > > > addressing this point. Note that I don't care about the resolution, > > > but I do care that the draft be unambiguous. > > > > Can you point out the unambiguity? > > I think Dean did a good job with that, namely that one could > view "versions" as instances, and that two versions with > different content are different versions and so need > different Etags. That's exactly what the model already says. Your original question was whether "A" and "A" could have the same etag. According to the draft, yes. ALso according to the draft, if you decided to give them a different etag, fine. Nothing would break. Everything would work exactly the same way. I'm apparently missing what practical problem the draft is not addressing. Cheers, Aki _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
