Subject: [Bug 177] New: "PROPFIND status codes" section

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:13:08 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177

           Summary: "PROPFIND status codes" section
           Product: WebDAV-RFC2518-bis
           Version: -08
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-
                    webdav-rfc2518bis-08.html#rfc.section.8.2.1
        OS/Version: other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: 08.  HTTP Methods for Distributed Authoring
        AssignedTo: [email-masked]
        ReportedBy: [email-masked]
         QAContact: [email-masked]

"A server MAY fail an entire PROPFIND request with an appropriate status code
and MAY redirect the entire request."

This is true for any HTTP request. Saying it here explicitly may cause people to
wonder whether this is true for other methods defined here...

"In addition, the following error codes are specifically defined for PROPFIND
requests:

403 Forbidden - A server MAY reject all PROPFIND requests on collections with
depth header of "Infinity", in which case it SHOULD use this error with the
element 'propfind-infinite-depth-forbidden' inside the error body."

1) No, 403 is not defined specifically for PROPFIND.

2) A server MAY reject them also if the resource is not a collection (why check
first???)

3) I think the part about the response body is only understandable to people who
 already knew that. Let's have one piece in the earlier sections that defines
the error response body in a consistent way with RFC3253, then just define a
precondition name here.

The text goes on listing 4 specific status codes to which I object:

1) As far as I can tell, nobody asked for that restriction, and worse:

2) There's an IESG-accepted spec that already shows another status code that can
be used here
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-property-datatypes-latest.html#rfc.section.4.2>),
which IMHO is a real-world proof that this subsection is not only unnecessary,
but also harmful.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:26:01 -0800

On 11/20/05 12:13 PM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ) There's an IESG-accepted spec that already shows another status code that
> can
> be used here

Is that really and IESG reviewed spec? I thought it was an individual
submission to the RFC editor?

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:35:52 +0100

> submission to the RFC editor? 

...that was approved by the IESG a few months ago. See 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=7567>.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:40:58 -0800

On 11/24/05 8:35 AM, "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-property-datatypes-l
>>> at
>>> est.html#rfc.section.4.2>),
>> 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=7567>>
.
> Best regards, Julian

Cool - thanks.