W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: DeltaV methods on locked non-VCR: which response code?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:28:08 +0200
To: "Nevermann, Dr., Peter" <Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEABFBAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Nevermann, Dr.,
> Peter
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:21 AM
> To: 'ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: DeltaV methods on locked non-VCR: which response code?
> Thanks, Geoff!
> Some of us were assuming that checking for the lock ("as being
> WebDAV") had
> priority over checking of DeltaV precondition violations ... in which case
> 423 would be the response in most of the cases below. But, as we
> can deduce
> from your response, that is not the case.

I'd say that this is higly implementation dependant, and I don't think that
RFC3253 mandates a specific oder in checking these conditions.

> Another issue, which we find difficult sometimes, is to decide whether to
> use 403 or 409 as status code on DeltaV precondition violations.
> Example 1: assume existing collection at /ws/bar then
> returns 403 with DAV:resource-must-be-null ... as you stated below.
> According to section 1.6 of RFC 3253 this means that the request
> should not
> be repeated because it will always fail. But it could be 409
> because: isn't
> the user able to resolve the conflict by deleting /ws/bar and
> then resubmit
> the request?

HTTP says about 409:

"The request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state
of the resource."

So I think I agree with you.

> Example 2: assume checked-in VCR at /foo.xml and
> CHECKOUT /foo.xml (without DAV:fork-ok)
> (a) violating precondition
> DAV:checkout-of-version-with-descendant-is-discouraged; then I
> would return
> status code 409 since the user can resolve the conflict by passing the
> DAV:fork-ok element.

But that would be a different request, right? So you didn't "fix" the state
of the resource, but the nature of your request...

> (b) violating precondition
> DAV:checkout-of-version-with-descendant-is-forbidden; then I would return
> status code 403 ... hm, or should it be 409 since the conflict could be
> resolved by proppatching the DAV:checkout-fork property???

I think so.
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 04:28:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:48 UTC