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

RE: RFC2518 LOCK Response Code

From: Hall, Shaun <Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:31:17 -0000
Message-ID: <B99BE740B488D311B4AA00805FBB776750A700@gbrwgcms03.wgc.gbr.xerox.com>
To: "'W3C WebDAV Mailing List'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Reposting as I've had no response to this.

Am I correct in my assumption i.e. does the spec need updating?

Regards

Shaun Hall
Xerox Europe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hall, Shaun [mailto:Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com]
> Sent: 23 November 2000 12:04
> To: 'W3C WebDAV Mailing List'
> Subject: RFC2518 LOCK Response Code
> 
> 
> An issue regarding a LOCK response code in RFC2518. A quick 
> search in the
> archives didn't show anything about this.
> 
> In section 8.10.4, it states "If the lock cannot be granted to all
> resources, a 409 (Conflict) status code MUST be returned with 
> a response
> entity body containing a multi-status XML element...".
> 
> 1) The 409 status code is not listed in section 8.10.7 (LOCK 
> status codes).
> 2) The example in section 8.10.10 (Multi-resource LOCK 
> request which fails)
> returns a 207 (Multi-status) response code, not a 409.
> 
> The 207 response is normal for WebDAV methods that need to provide
> information about multiple-resources.
> 
> I'm inclined to think the 207 is the correct response in such 
> a failure
> case, which at first implies the 409 is wrong.
> 
> However, I think the only case where a 409 is applicable is 
> if one it trying
> to "create" a Lock Null Resource (LNR) (i.e. the 
> null-resource does not
> exist) and where the ancestors of the LNR do not exist. I 
> think this would
> be consistent with other methods as well (e.g. PUT, COPY, MOVE).
> 
> Comments/clarification/etc please.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Shaun Hall
> Xerox Europe
> 
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 05:17:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:55 GMT