302 in miultistattus, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 8:14 PM
> To: Webdav WG
> Subject: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
>
> ...
> - Error responses that must contain headers (like 302) don't contain
> those headers in multistatus.  E.g. when you MOVE a collection, but one
> of the collection members is redirected, a 302 would be most convenient
> and normally comes along with a location. Clarify in 2518 bis.
> ...

That's in fact a very interesting problem, which is partly solved in the
expired redirect references draft [1]. If we can come up with a similarm but
more generic format, I'm all for it. But is it reasonable to attempt to
resolve this in RFC2518bis?

Julian


[1]
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-02.
html#rfc.section.7.3>

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760