- From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:48:34 -0500
- To: "'ccjason@us.ibm.com'" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I don't have a strong commitment to 507 either, but for what it's worth the rationale was that any creation of a cross-server binding requires out-of-band collaboration between the servers. So it seems very likely that a lot of servers will fail requests to create a binding to a resource on another server, so it seems useful to have an error code for this case. --Judy > -----Original Message----- > From: ccjason@us.ibm.com [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:40 PM > To: Yaron Goland > Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.507 > > > > >> > 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 Wednesday, 19 January 2000 10:48:45 UTC