Subject: RE: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:19:33 -0400

What do you have in mind for making this consistent?

There are some reports in RFC-3253 that are usefully applied with
Depth>0 (e.g. DAV:expand-property and DAV:version-tree).  There are
others that only make sense for Depth=0 (DAV:compare-baseline and
DAV:merge-preview).  So I agree that we can make the reports that only
make sense for Depth=0 to say so explicitly, as does the ACL spec.
Is that what you had in mind?

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:45 PM
To: WebDAV
Subject: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity

Hi,

re: RFC2518 issue: PROPFIND_INFINITY.

So the plan is that servers MAY reject PROPFIND with depth infinity, and the
currently suggested return value is 403 (forbidden).

Now what applies to PROPFIND should apply to REPORT as well, right?

The ACL draft defines only reports with depth == 0, and requires 400 (bad
request) otherwise.

RFC3253 is silent about that issue, suggesting that servers may not reject
the request.

It would be nice if we could make this consistent before it's too late...

Julian

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:34:59 +0200

Sorry for not being clear.

What I meant is that for the same reasons a server may want to reject
PROPFINDs with depth infinity, it may want to reject REPORTs with depth
infinity as well. In particular, I can use DAV:expand-property to simulate a
PROPFIND/DAV:prop, so it doesn't seem to make sense to change RFC2518 to
make PROPFIND/DAV:prop/depth-infinity optional, while requiring support for
an equivalent REPORT (DAV:expand-property).

Julian

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:20 PM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: RE: PROPFIND vs REPORT vs depth infinity
>
>
>