- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: 2001年3月20日 09:51:55 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
- Message-ID: <20010320095155.W27539@lyra.org>
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:54:51AM -0500, Clemm, Geoff wrote: >... > So I propose the following clarifications: > > 1. In section 8.10.1, add the following paragraph: > > A LOCK request on a non-existent resource without an appropriately > scoped parent collection MUST fail with a 409 (Conflict) response > whose body is empty. > > The 409 response is fine, but the requirement that the body be empty > is not. RFC 2616 states: >... > 2. In section 8.10.7 add the following: > > 409 (Conflict) ュ Case 1. A non-existent resource cannot be locked > at the destination until one or more intermediate collections have > been created. There MUST be no response body. > > OK, except for last sentence which should be deleted. > > Case 2. A LOCK request (depth > 0) on an existing collection would > conflict with existing locks on members of the collection. The > response body SHOULD be a multi-status indicating the members in > conflict. > > OK by me. I'm with Geoff. It all looks fine, except for the "no body" thing. (and I'll note mod_dav actually barfs with a 500 in this scenario) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 12:52:21 UTC