- From: Kevin Wiggen <wiggs@xythos.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:01:20 -0800
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Interesting difference in interpretation of RFC2518 :) Assume I have a resource /foo that is locked depth infinity by a lock token <lt> No resource exists at /foo/bar A PUT is performed at /foo/bar with a No-tagged-list passing the lock token in the IF header. What should the correct response be. From our limited testing: 1) Xythos - 201. The resource /foo is locked and /foo/bar does not exist. Thus the lock token is correct for every resource that exists (/foo) and thus the creation of the file is allowed. 2) Mod_dav - 412. (I am assuming this is the rationale). /foo/bar does NOT exist. The token should be applied to the state of resource /test/foo. The resource does not exist, so the token cannot match. Thus it fails with 412. I could argue this either way. I of course lean toward the 201, but that just might be because it is the first way I interpreted the spec. Thoughts? Kevin Xythos
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 18:01:35 UTC