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

RE: Review of ordering draft, version 05

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:02:02 +0100
To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEPEGHAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Hi.

I have tried to clarify the postconditon descriptions in the current
"latest" draft ([1]). Those who already reviewed it and found them to be
inprecise may want to review the changes.

Julian


[1]
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-ordering-protocol-latest
.html>

--
<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 Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 7:09 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; Webdav WG
> Subject: RE: Review of ordering draft, version 05
>
>
>
> > > Actually, I agree that RFC2518 has a better error
> > marshalling mechanism
> >
> > I assume that's a typo :-)
>
> Yeah, oops, that was a typo :)
>
>
> > Yes, and I think that's something that should be possibly
> > fixed in RFC3253.
> > Failure to meet a postcondition (after all preconditions were
> > verified)
> > always is a server bug and thus would belong into the 5xx
> > range. The main
> > question is: which spec should fix that? I'd really like to
> > see RFC2518bis
> > to pick up (and clarify) this kind of error typing (maybe in
> > a way that
> > makes it optional?).
>
> Seems reasonable to me, as long as it is optional. Other opinions?
>
>
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 08:02:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT