Subject: Depth header in PROPPATCH method

From: "Stanley Guan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:59:04 -0800

Hi,

Is Depth hader allowed in a PROPPATCH method?  If specified
by the client, what should the server respond?

Thx,

-Stanley

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:09:33 +0100

> by the client, what should the server respond?

PROPPATCH doesn't specify how a Depth header should be interpreted. 
Thus, a client cannot rely on any specific server behaviour.

I'd assume that most of the servers will ignore the header upon 
PROPPATCH, thus rejecting the message may cause interoperability 
problems. So maybe RFC2518bis should clarify this?

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: "Stanley Guan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:16:46 -0800

Julian,

I think it needs to be clarified.  Also, can the "set" and 
"remove" XML elements specify properties belonging
to the internal member's?

Thx,

-Stanley

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:24:47 +0100

> to the internal member's?

No, they can't. What did you think they can?

Julian

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:44:34 -0800

> problems. So maybe RFC2518bis should clarify this?

I seem to recall Lisa Dusseault talking about how painful it was for
Exchange to implement Depth/PROPPATCH behavior, and hence I suspect there
are some servers that do implement this capability.

- Jim

---

From: "Stanley Guan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:09:43 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
To: "Stanley Guan" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Depth header in PROPPATCH method

> No, they can't. What did you think they can?

In the document, it didn't say it can't.   But, it didn't mention
the depth header in the proppatch section either.  I think
it's better to clarify it.

---

From: "Stanley Guan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:04:25 -0800

Julian,

This seems to say that there are some confusions among
implementers on whether a Depth on PROPPATCH is
acceptable or not!

Thx,

-Stanley

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:13:25 +0100

> implementers on whether a Depth on PROPPATCH is

No, there is really no reason for confusion. PROPPATCH is defined to act 
on the resource identified by the request URI, nothing else. If some 
implementers decide to *extend* that it's up to them, but it still is a 
proprietary extension with no backing from RFC2518.

Julian