On 02.07.21 12:15, JC Brand wrote: > So, my proposal is that XEP-0385 be updated so that the XEP-0300 hash > requirement gets relaxed to a SHOULD
+1. I would even make the hash OPTIONAL as SHOULD is already pretty strong. > and that the inclusion of the Etag > header be documented as an alternative in case a hash is not feasible. > There might also be cases where neither a hash or an Etag header is > available. You wrote yourself that you don't know what to conclude from an Etag mismatch. But it does not sound wrong to have the etag as optional metadata for exploration reasons. Maybe someone comes up with a use case for it. - Florian _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
