W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:17:26 -0400
To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9CD702BA.994F8F7D-ON852570A8.0012112A-852570A8.00121598@us.ibm.com>
+1

w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 10/27/2005 07:50:06 PM:

> 
> >
> 
> Julian writes:
> > Back to this issue:
> >
> > 1) I'm not aware of any interop problems.
> >
> > 2) I'm not aware of anybody having asked about this.
> >
> > 3) I don't see any benefit in RFC2518bis making statements about 
> > this, even if we *did* agree on what to say
> 
> I have just read through this entire thread, and I agree with his 
> statement above, and the conclusion Julian reached in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005OctDec/0294.html
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> * I don't think there is a compelling need to disallow Location and 207
> * I don't think we need any special mechanism for handling 3xx within 
> a PROPFIND
> * I think it's fine if a client needs to retry a PROPFIND request if 
> it receives a 3xx response
> 
> I feel a slight desire to add a 3xx response to one of the PROPFIND 
> 207 response examples in the text, but could live without it.
> 
> Unless others chime in, I think we're seeing rough consensus for 
> removing the current 8.1.3, whose text is described in Bug 12 within 
> Bugzilla:
> http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12
> 
> - Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 28 October 2005 03:17:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT