- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:39:46 -0500
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>> In section 5.5 the 507 error code is written as "507 (Cross-Server Binding Forbidden): The server is unable to create the requested binding because it would bind a segment in a collection on one server to a resource on a different server." What does a server have to do with anything? If you try to bind two resources in different volumes on a FrontPage server the server will have to fail the BIND even though the resources are on the same server. In general bringing in the server is almost always a bad idea since resources can be spread out all over the place and the reasons for various failures may or may not have anything to do with how those resources are laid out on the servers. As such I move that the language for the 507 error code be altered to read that the resource was unable to create a binding to a destination and to leave the matter at that. All mentions of the word server should be stricken. >> Hmmm. I don't have a strong preference on whether we should create a new status code for lack of support for remote connections. At some point we might find we need one. Anyway.... the status code that you're suggesting doesn't seem to suggest anything except that the server can't do it. Can't we just use 500 for that? And if so, shouldn't we mention 500 it in the spec? Or is 500 too obvious to mention?
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 20:55:08 UTC