[Varnish] #940: ETag for gzip'd variant identical to ETag of ungzipped variant.

[Varnish]

#940: ETag for gzip'd variant identical to ETag of ungzipped variant.
----------------------+---------------------
 Reporter:  david     |       Owner:  martin
     Type:  defect    |      Status:  new
 Priority:  high      |   Milestone:
Component:  build     |     Version:  3.0.0
 Severity:  critical  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:            |
----------------------+---------------------

Comment (by slink):

 Replying to [comment:2 david]:

 > Thanks for the ideas. Changing the etag for gzipped variants in
 vcl_deliver was the first thing I tried. It neutered my hit ratio because
 all of the if-modified-since and if-none-match headers started to not
 work.

 @david: I have written down some thoughts in [wiki:ETags] and I wonder if
 you had tried changing the ETag for '''un'''gzipped variants to `W/`eak or
 removing it, but leaving it as it is for gzipped.

 In practice, most clients should `Accept-Encoding: gzip` so we definitely
 want Etags to allow for
 *
 INM `Range` for this case, but I believe removing Etags for un-gzipped or
 making them weak should not make that big a difference.

 @anyone else: I'd appreciate feedback on [wiki:ETags]

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/ticket/940#comment:12>
Varnish <https://varnish-cache.org/>
The Varnish HTTP Accelerator