W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: [Moderator Action] Questions on Webdav Servers

From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:47:15 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <852567BB.0009F128.00@D51MTA07.pok.ibm.com>

Fow now, I recommend using 423 (Locked), although we need to add a new
status code, 4xx (Parent Locked).  Though the language is a big unclear,
this is the intent of the discussion in the second paragraph of section 7.5
of RFC 2518 (which states that 423 Locked should be used).
Ummm.  Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't think dedicating an error
code to parent lock is a great idea.  Note... a URI can also be
"protected" if any child or decendent is locked and I'd guess that
we're not going to have a return code for each of these.  I suspect
that if we're going to specify what was locked, we'll need to come
up with a generic way of specifying what lock(s) is/are causing
the problem.... just stick with a single LOCKED error code.
Received on Monday, 26 July 1999 21:49:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:20 UTC