- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:30:23 +0200
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:10 PM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: 3.5: VERSION-CONTROL response codes > > > To date, we've limited 3253 modifications to demonstrable > semantic problems with the protocol (e.g. the Label header) > or interoperability problems (the use of an OPTIONS body). > I personally would not want to modify/extend the protocol > simply for "consistency". This makes the protocol too much of a > moving target for implementors. I agree with this. However, I'm not sure about how intrusive this change is. - Right now the response code for VERSION-CONTROL conflicts with the recommendations from RFC2616. With the current wording, client writers can rely on getting a 200 on success. I think we should relax that so that 201 is allowed as well (yes, I think this needs to be mentioned as an erratum). - All the other changes then follow from standard RFC2616 semantics, and or similar definitions in DeltaV. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 11:30:41 UTC