Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)

Do you really think this should be removed from the final RFC? On the call
the other day I though you were going to do some testing and come up with
some modifications for this text?


On 10/16/05 8:35 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I note that this paragraph has made it into the current draft at
> <http://ietf.webdav.org/webdav/rfc2518bis/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis.xml>.
> Could you please remove it unless we reach a working group consensus to
> add it?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 
>> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> This thread from a couple months ago brought up something probably
>>> worth clarifying in RFC2518bis.  In fact we could usefully constrain
>>> servers generally in what status codes MAY or MUST NOT be used inside
>>> Multi-Status.  I wrote up a strawman draft section for this so we
>>> could discuss the specifics:
>>> 
>>>    The following status codes MUST NOT be used in Multi-Status
>>>    responses: 100 Continue, 101 Switching Protocols, 205 Reset Content,
>>>    206 Partial Content, 300 Multiple Choices?, 305 Use Proxy, 400 Bad
>>>    Request, 405 Method Not Allowed, 406 Not Acceptable, 407 Proxy
>>>    Authentication Required, 411 Length Required, 412 Precondition
>>>    Failed, 413 Request Entity Too Large, 414 Request-URI Too Long, 415
>>>    Unsupported Media Type, 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable, 417
>>>    Expectation Failed, 501 Not Implemented and 505 HTTP Version Not
>>>    Supported.
>>> 
>>>    The following status codes MAY be used in Multi-Status responses: 200
>>>    OK, 201 Created, 301 Moved Permanently, 302 Found, 303 See Other, 307
>>>    Temporary Redirect, 401 Unauthorized, 403 Forbidden, 404 Not Found
>>>    and 410 Gone.
>>> 
>>>    The following status codes MAY be used in Multi-Status responses,
>>>    although the meaning might be unclear based only on this
>>>    specification.  Thus, specifications extending WebDAV MAY make use of
>>>    these status codes in Multi-Status responses but regular WebDAV
>>>    clients would reasonably be expected to be confused by these: 202
>>>    Accepted, 203 Non-Authoritative Information, 204 No Content, 304 Not
>>>    Modified, 402 Payment Required, 409 Conflict, 408 Request Timeout,
>>>    500 Internal Server Error, 502 Bad Gateway, 503 Service Unavailable
>>>    and 504 Gateway Timeout.
>>> 
>>> Comments?
>> 
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> 1) What exactly is the issue this is supposed to solve?
>> 
>> 2) How did you come up with these lists? How do they help a client that
>> needs to handle unknown status codes anyway (based on the first digit)?
>> For instance, why can 300 not appear in a multistatus?
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
>> 
>

Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 21:24:58 UTC