W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: new issue: Updates 3253 (DAV:error)

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:39:01 -0800
Message-Id: <CDB0DE74-D8AC-40F1-BC8C-A010F4E77F78@osafoundation.org>
Cc: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Thanks for pointing this out.  I'm trying to wrap my head around this  
to figure out just how incompatible this is and how to describe the  

First, I'm not at all sure that the WG intended to update RFC3253.   
We could leave all updating of RFC3253 to a separate effort.

Second, is it incompatible?  The server could put the DAV:error  
element in both places if it's a RFC3253 server and if it's not sure  
whether it's seeing a versioning request.

Third, is it implemented?  Are there RFC3253 servers which put the  
DAV:error element in DAV:responsedescription today?

If we do intend to update RFC3253, should we indicate whether the  
server SHOULD include the "DAV:error" element inside the  
"DAV:responsedescription" element as well as the "DAV:response"  
element for backwards compatibility, or alternatively whether clients  
SHOULD look in both places because there might be updated as well as  
non-updated servers.

If you can suggest specific language, perhaps that would be best.

thx again,

On Jan 22, 2007, at 2:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
> RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response)  
> in an
> incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter  
> ("Updates: 3253") and mention it as a change near the Changes  
> Appendix.
> (see <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi? 
> id=258>)
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 26 January 2007 21:39:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:41 UTC