- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:15:37 -0500
- To: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.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. >> In addition, it is something that the clients understand and can take action on. They almost certainly know when they are requesting a cross server binding and if they see a 507 then they probably will realize that bindings aren't supported between the two servers specified in this request... and therefore the clients will stop trying. OTOH, clients probably don't know where the boundaries between file systems are within the URI namespace so they will have difficulty knowing which bindings are allowed and which aren't if a machine refuses to create bindings across file systems. In other words, they can't take much action in the situation that Yaron mentioned so for the time being, there's probably not much point in using anything other than 500 in the situation he mentioned
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 12:16:53 UTC