- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:02:02 +0100
- To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Hi. I have tried to clarify the postconditon descriptions in the current "latest" draft ([1]). Those who already reviewed it and found them to be inprecise may want to review the changes. Julian [1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-ordering-protocol-latest .html> -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 7:09 PM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; Webdav WG > Subject: RE: Review of ordering draft, version 05 > > > > > > Actually, I agree that RFC2518 has a better error > > marshalling mechanism > > > > I assume that's a typo :-) > > Yeah, oops, that was a typo :) > > > > Yes, and I think that's something that should be possibly > > fixed in RFC3253. > > Failure to meet a postcondition (after all preconditions were > > verified) > > always is a server bug and thus would belong into the 5xx > > range. The main > > question is: which spec should fix that? I'd really like to > > see RFC2518bis > > to pick up (and clarify) this kind of error typing (maybe in > > a way that > > makes it optional?). > > Seems reasonable to me, as long as it is optional. Other opinions? > >
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 08:02:34 UTC