RE: v6: 102 Processing and Status-URI

By my reading, Section 10.1 of RFC 2068 doesn't really address Jim's 
questions in any substantive way.  I think the DAV spec. would be improved 
by noting that any method can return a 102, and that the server must 
eventually return a non-1xx status code response which will typically, but 
not necessarily be a 207 Multi-Status.

- Jim

On Saturday, January 24, 1998 3:18 PM, Yaron Goland 
[SMTP:yarong@microsoft.com] wrote:
> Please refer to section 10.1 of RFC 2068 for a full explanation of what 
1xx
> series response codes are and how they work. It fully and completely 
answers
> your question.
> 	Yaron
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Jim Davis [SMTP:jdavis@parc.xerox.com]
> > Sent:	Saturday, January 24, 1998 2:05 PM
> > To:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject:	v6: 102 Processing and Status-URI
> >
> > Do we still need 102 Processing?   Can *any* method return 102?  or 
only
> > some?  If only some, then those that can return it should list it the 
list
> > of possible status codes.  If all can, then there should be some 
language
> > that says that the list of status codes with each DAV method is not
> > exhaustive.
> >
> > The explanation isn't sufficient to understand how 102 works.  An 
example
> > would help.  I mean, I can guess, and I might guess right, but I might
> > guess wrong, too.
> >
> > If I do e.g., a MOVE, and get back 102 Processing, will I eventually 
get a
> > MultiStatus?  Will I get a stream of 102s every 20 seconds or so, until 
I
> > get that 207?
>

Received on Monday, 26 January 1998 16:03:27 UTC