W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: inconsistent reporting of DAV:error inside multistatus responses

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:36:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4699F8A9.3030300@gmx.de>
To: Paritosh Shah <shah.paritosh@gmail.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Paritosh Shah wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> There are a few inconsistencies in the way DAV:error is to be reported
> inside a multi-status response as per different RFCs.

Yes. See also 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.F.1.p.2>:

"This specification adopts the error marshalling extensions and the 
"precondition/postcondition" terminology defined in [RFC3253] (see 
Section 16). Related to that, it adds the "error" XML element inside 
multistatus response bodies (see Section 14.5, however note that it uses 
a format different from the one recommended in RFC 3253)."

> According to RFC3253 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3253#section-1.6 ) :-
> "In a 207 Multi-Status response, the DAV:error element would appear in
> the appropriate DAV:responsedescription element."
> (RFC3744 also follows this definition)
> Example - http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3744#section-5.1.2
> 
> According to RFC2518bis
> (http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#pre_post) 
> 
> "In a 207 Multi-Status response, the XML element MUST appear inside an
> 'error' element in the appropriate 'propstat or 'response' element
> depending on whether the condition applies to one or more properties or
> to the resource as a whole"
> Example -
> http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#DELETE-example 
> 
> 
> Do both types need to be supported ( depending on the request - basic
> vs versioning ) ? Or, after 2518bis is published, would it supercede
> 3253's definition ?

No, as far as I can tell, the intent was to change it, thus servers 
should just implement what RFC4918 says. Of course this means that 
RFC4918 should have stated "Updates RFC3253". This was reported as issue 
<http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258> in 
February, but unfortunately not fixed (similarly to lots of other 
issues...).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2007 10:36:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT