- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:09:45 -0400
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
That sounds sensible to me. If there are no objections, I'll add this as the resolution to this issue to the RFC 3253 Errata/Issue list. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:01 PM To: Clemm, Geoff; WebDAV Subject: RE: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity Ok, so we have: - REPORT not defined for this depth --> 400 (bad request) - REPORT is defined, but server doesn't allow depth infinity --> 403 (forbidden). Should we define an error condition name for this situation and add that to the RFC3253 (proposal: "DAV:depth-infinity-allowed")? Julian > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 10:09 PM > To: WebDAV > Subject: RE: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity > > > > I agree that if PROPFIND MAY refuse to process a Depth:infinity > request, than it should also be the case that REPORT MAY refuse > to process a Depth:infinity request. For REPORT, I'd also define > a DAV:error value for this condition, so that a client can tell > that it is non-support for Depth:Infinity that caused the failure. > > But note that I think it is fine for specific reports to return 400 > (meaning that the report by definition does not allow > the specified Depth), while other reports return 403 > meaning that this implementation > does not support it, even if it the report is defined for > that Depth. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:35 PM > To: Clemm, Geoff; WebDAV > Subject: RE: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity > > > Sorry for not being clear. > > What I meant is that for the same reasons a server may want to reject > PROPFINDs with depth infinity, it may want to reject REPORTs with depth > infinity as well. In particular, I can use DAV:expand-property to > simulate a > PROPFIND/DAV:prop, so it doesn't seem to make sense to change RFC2518 to > make PROPFIND/DAV:prop/depth-infinity optional, while requiring > support for > an equivalent REPORT (DAV:expand-property). > > Julian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:20 PM > > To: WebDAV > > Subject: RE: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity > > > > > > > > What do you have in mind for making this consistent? > > > > There are some reports in RFC-3253 that are usefully applied with > > Depth>0 (e.g. DAV:expand-property and DAV:version-tree). There are > > others that only make sense for Depth=0 (DAV:compare-baseline and > > DAV:merge-preview). So I agree that we can make the reports that only > > make sense for Depth=0 to say so explicitly, as does the ACL spec. > > Is that what you had in mind? > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:45 PM > > To: WebDAV > > Subject: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > re: RFC2518 issue: PROPFIND_INFINITY. > > > > So the plan is that servers MAY reject PROPFIND with depth > > infinity, and the > > currently suggested return value is 403 (forbidden). > > > > Now what applies to PROPFIND should apply to REPORT as well, right? > > > > The ACL draft defines only reports with depth == 0, and > requires 400 (bad > > request) otherwise. > > > > RFC3253 is silent about that issue, suggesting that servers may > not reject > > the request. > > > > It would be nice if we could make this consistent before it's > too late... > > > > Julian > > >
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 16:10:26 UTC