- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:47:15 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>> 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