W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: WebDAV sync report w/invalid sync token

From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:26:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4EC2767E.7070709@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Hmm.  Not having a normative reference to RFC 3253 might be an 
oversight.  Without the draft explicitly stating that 409 should be used 
for an invalid sync-token or having an example showing as much, RFC 3253 
is the only way for implementers to know what response code is applicable.


Werner Donné wrote:
> Hi Ken,
> 
> Your conclusion is correct, because the draft uses the REPORT method, 
> which is specified in RFC 3253. However, the draft doesn't refer to this 
> RFC. This would probably be difficult, because synchronization is 
> supposed to work as well for servers and clients that don't implement 
> RFC 3253. Some day the generic stuff in RFC 3253 should move to a 
> separate RFC or perhaps RFC 4918.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Werner.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu 
> <mailto:murch@andrew.cmu.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     Folks,
> 
>     What is the proper response code for a sync-collection report if the
>     sync-token is either invalid or out of date?  The I-D doesn't seem
>     to specify, so looking at RFC 3253 section 1.6 it appears that 403
>     and 409 are the two options for a precondition failure, with 409
>     presumably being the correct choice in this case.  Am I missing
>     something?
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Ken
> 
>     -- 
>     Kenneth Murchison
>     Principal Systems Software Engineer
>     Carnegie Mellon University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.pincette.biz/
> Handling your documents with care, wherever you are.
> 


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 14:26:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 November 2011 14:26:38 GMT