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

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-01.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:34:46 +0100
To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEDHGOAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:08 AM
> To: Clemm, Geoff
> Cc: WebDAV
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-01.txt
> ...
> > There are some obvious
> > cases (a syntactically ill-formed request), but many of the others
> > could fall in either category (the quota errors, in particular).
> Not really.  If the request would have succeeded but did not due
> to an addition of bytes exceeding quota, then it is a 5xx.
> If the request alone is sending a body greater than the quota max
> (disregarding other content on the server), then the correct
> response is not quota-exceeded but rather 413 (Request Entity Too
> Large).
> ...

For the record -- having read Roy's comment and looking again at RFC2616 --

	"Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which
the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the

I now agree that a 5xx code is the right one for "quota exceeded". However I
still think it's valuable to be able to distinguish between the various
reasons for 507 (Insufficient Storage), so I think we should have specific
condition (for marshalling in DAV:error) for the various conditions.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 14:34:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:27 UTC