W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:09:19 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B107839149@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

I agree that if PROPFIND MAY refuse to process a Depth:infinity
request, than it should also be the case that REPORT MAY refuse
to process a Depth:infinity request.  For REPORT, I'd also define
a DAV:error value for this condition, so that a client can tell
that it is non-support for Depth:Infinity that caused the failure.

But note that I think it is fine for specific reports to return 400
(meaning that the report by definition does not allow
the specified Depth), while other reports return 403
meaning that this implementation
does not support it, even if it the report is defined for
that Depth.

Cheers,
Geoff 


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:35 PM
To: Clemm, Geoff; WebDAV
Subject: RE: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity


Sorry for not being clear.

What I meant is that for the same reasons a server may want to reject
PROPFINDs with depth infinity, it may want to reject REPORTs with depth
infinity as well. In particular, I can use DAV:expand-property to simulate a
PROPFIND/DAV:prop, so it doesn't seem to make sense to change RFC2518 to
make PROPFIND/DAV:prop/depth-infinity optional, while requiring support for
an equivalent REPORT (DAV:expand-property).

Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:20 PM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: RE: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity
>
>
>
> What do you have in mind for making this consistent?
>
> There are some reports in RFC-3253 that are usefully applied with
> Depth>0 (e.g. DAV:expand-property and DAV:version-tree).  There are
> others that only make sense for Depth=0 (DAV:compare-baseline and
> DAV:merge-preview).  So I agree that we can make the reports that only
> make sense for Depth=0 to say so explicitly, as does the ACL spec.
> Is that what you had in mind?
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:45 PM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> re: RFC2518 issue: PROPFIND_INFINITY.
>
> So the plan is that servers MAY reject PROPFIND with depth
> infinity, and the
> currently suggested return value is 403 (forbidden).
>
> Now what applies to PROPFIND should apply to REPORT as well, right?
>
> The ACL draft defines only reports with depth == 0, and requires 400 (bad
> request) otherwise.
>
> RFC3253 is silent about that issue, suggesting that servers may not reject
> the request.
>
> It would be nice if we could make this consistent before it's too late...
>
> Julian
>
Received on Monday, 5 August 2002 16:09:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT