- From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:26:06 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Hmm. Not having a normative reference to RFC 3253 might be an oversight. Without the draft explicitly stating that 409 should be used for an invalid sync-token or having an example showing as much, RFC 3253 is the only way for implementers to know what response code is applicable. Werner Donné wrote: > Hi Ken, > > Your conclusion is correct, because the draft uses the REPORT method, > which is specified in RFC 3253. However, the draft doesn't refer to this > RFC. This would probably be difficult, because synchronization is > supposed to work as well for servers and clients that don't implement > RFC 3253. Some day the generic stuff in RFC 3253 should move to a > separate RFC or perhaps RFC 4918. > > Best regards, > > Werner. > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu > <mailto:murch@andrew.cmu.edu>> wrote: > > Folks, > > What is the proper response code for a sync-collection report if the > sync-token is either invalid or out of date? The I-D doesn't seem > to specify, so looking at RFC 3253 section 1.6 it appears that 403 > and 409 are the two options for a precondition failure, with 409 > presumably being the correct choice in this case. Am I missing > something? > > Thanks, > Ken > > -- > Kenneth Murchison > Principal Systems Software Engineer > Carnegie Mellon University > > > > > -- > http://www.pincette.biz/ > Handling your documents with care, wherever you are. > -- Kenneth Murchison Principal Systems Software Engineer Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 14:26:38 UTC