- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:47:29 +0100
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "DeltaV \(E-mail\)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
No (I don't object). Actually, this (raising this issue here) was on my list of things to do anyway :-) Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:38 PM > To: DeltaV (E-mail) > Subject: Allowing DAV:error in any 4xx or 5xx response > > > > In a recent thread on the ordering protocol, Julian suggested that a > 500 response code is more appropriate than either a 403 or a 409 for a > postcondition failure. I agree, and furthermore believe that RFC3253 > should be updated to allow a DAV:error node to appear in the body of > any 4xx or 5xx response. This allows the server to use the most > meaningful response code for clients that do not understand DAV:error > nodes. > > Does anyone object to this extension? > > Cheers, > Geoff > >
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 09:48:20 UTC