Hi Marcus:

In message <f8ca8fd9-78b7-6eb7-f290-358c21a93b83@priesch.co.at>,
Marcus Priesch writes:
>i am very sorry, i completely missed what the ETag really is designed
>for ! sorry for that !

No problem. I did a lot of research on etags and things, but I have
forgotten most of it. It was due for a new look.

>i just read the wikipedia page - and YES, it should only be present on
>GET - and definitely needs to have the encodig part in it !

Yeah. I had hoped that the vary header would do the trick and it did
with varnish. But it looks like I missed the RFC that made it
explicit.

>but for our use case it would definitely make sense to have that
>metadata thing ... :) - i will give it a look tomorrow ...

Cool. You can use this ticket to track the implementation, test, doc
changes etc. There should be no reason to bump the API version. The
@etag value in the envelope should just be ignored by clients that
don't use it.