Re: [camp] Groups - camp-spec-v1.2-wd11-issue-186-v4.doc uploaded

There is a requirement that I forgot to review in today's meeting. It occurs at the top of Section 5.6, "collection Resource" and reads:

If a Provider chooses to return the ETag header in its responses, the value of this header SHALL refer to the entire collection and not the subset of the collection represented by the collection resource. [RE-84]

This requirement occurs within the context of the only other requirement that mentions the ETag header:

All HTTP responses that return representation of a resource SHOULD use a strong ETag response header field indicating the current value of the entity tag for the resource. [PR-20]

I thought RE-84 was necessary because, if the ETag refers to the particular subset in the collection resource, you can't use it to tell when the entire collection has changed from one GET to the next. I'd like some feedback on (a) the necessity for this requirement, (b) the phrasing of this requirement. This gets to the difference between the abstract notion of "the entire collection" versus the subset of the collection that is represented in a particular collection resource. Do people think RE-84 contradicts PR-20 in any way?

~ gp

On Sep 8, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Gilbert Pilz <> wrote:
        Submitter's message

        Miscellaneous editorial fixes. Make requirement references concrete. Add requirements to tables in the appendices.
        

-- Gilbert Pilz
        
    

    
        Document Name: camp-spec-v1.2-wd11-issue-186-v4.doc

        
        Description

        Concrete proposal for CAMP-186.        

        Download Latest Revision

        Public Download Link
        
        Submitter: Gilbert Pilz

                Group: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC

        Folder: Proposals

        Date submitted: 2016-09-08 13:21:24

                Revision: 4