W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.507

From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:48:34 -0500
Message-ID: <8E3CFBC709A8D21191A400805F15E0DBD2456D@crte147.wc.eso.mc.xerox.com>
To: "'ccjason@us.ibm.com'" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I don't have a strong commitment to 507 either, but for what it's worth the
rationale was that any creation of a cross-server binding requires
out-of-band collaboration between the servers.  So it seems very likely that
a lot of servers will fail requests to create a binding to a resource on
another server, so it seems useful to have an error code for this case.

--Judy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccjason@us.ibm.com [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:40 PM
> To: Yaron Goland
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.507
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> In section 5.5 the 507 error code is written as "507 
> (Cross-Server Binding
> Forbidden): The server is unable to create the requested 
> binding because it
> would bind a segment in a collection on one server to a resource on a
> different server."
> 
>         What does a server have to do with anything? If you 
> try to bind two
> resources in different volumes on a FrontPage server the 
> server will have
> to fail the BIND even though the resources are on the same server. In
> general bringing in the server is almost always a bad idea 
> since resources
> can be spread out all over the place and the reasons for 
> various failures
> may or may not have anything to do with how those resources 
> are laid out on
> the servers. As such I move that the language for the 507 
> error code be
> altered to read that the resource was unable to create a binding to a
> destination and to leave the matter at that. All mentions of the word
> server should be stricken.
> >>
> 
> Hmmm.  I don't have a strong preference on whether we should 
> create a new
> status code for lack of support for remote connections.  At 
> some point we
> might find we need one.   Anyway.... the status code that 
> you're suggesting
> doesn't seem to suggest anything except that the server can't do it.
> Can't we just use 500 for that?   And if so, shouldn't we 
> mention 500 it in
> the spec?  Or is 500 too obvious to mention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 10:48:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:53 GMT