W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: BIND: precondition DAV:locked-update-allowed

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:12:33 +0200
To: "Nevermann, Dr., Peter" <Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEKEHJAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I'd say that 3) would always be better (because more specific) than 2).

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Nevermann, Dr., Peter
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:48 PM
> To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'
> Subject: BIND: precondition DAV:locked-update-allowed
> 
> 
> 
> What return code should a BIND request return, if the precondition
> DAV:locked-update-allowed is violated, i.e. the collection 
> identified by the
> request-URI is write-locked, but no appropriate token has been 
> specified in
> an If request header?
> 
> 1) 409 "Conflict" with <D:error><D:locked-update-allowed/></error> in the
> response-body
> 
> 2) 423 "Locked"
> 
> 3) 423 "Locked" with <D:error><D:locked-update-allowed/></error> in the
> response-body
> 
> My feeling is that 2) would be correct.
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 12:12:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT