- From: Hall, Shaun <Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:31:17 -0000
- To: "'W3C WebDAV Mailing List'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Reposting as I've had no response to this. Am I correct in my assumption i.e. does the spec need updating? Regards Shaun Hall Xerox Europe > -----Original Message----- > From: Hall, Shaun [mailto:Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com] > Sent: 23 November 2000 12:04 > To: 'W3C WebDAV Mailing List' > Subject: RFC2518 LOCK Response Code > > > An issue regarding a LOCK response code in RFC2518. A quick > search in the > archives didn't show anything about this. > > In section 8.10.4, it states "If the lock cannot be granted to all > resources, a 409 (Conflict) status code MUST be returned with > a response > entity body containing a multi-status XML element...". > > 1) The 409 status code is not listed in section 8.10.7 (LOCK > status codes). > 2) The example in section 8.10.10 (Multi-resource LOCK > request which fails) > returns a 207 (Multi-status) response code, not a 409. > > The 207 response is normal for WebDAV methods that need to provide > information about multiple-resources. > > I'm inclined to think the 207 is the correct response in such > a failure > case, which at first implies the 409 is wrong. > > However, I think the only case where a 409 is applicable is > if one it trying > to "create" a Lock Null Resource (LNR) (i.e. the > null-resource does not > exist) and where the ancestors of the LNR do not exist. I > think this would > be consistent with other methods as well (e.g. PUT, COPY, MOVE). > > Comments/clarification/etc please. > > Regards > > Shaun Hall > Xerox Europe >
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 05:17:31 UTC