Subject: [Bug 211] New: Inconsistencies about Destination header

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:32:43 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211

           Summary: Inconsistencies about Destination header
           Product: WebDAV-RFC2518-bis
           Version: -09
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-
                    rfc2518bis-09.html#rfc.section.9.3
        OS/Version: other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: major
          Priority: P2
         Component: 09.  HTTP Headers for Distributed Authoring
        AssignedTo: [email-masked]
        ReportedBy: [email-masked]
         QAContact: [email-masked]
                CC: [email-masked]

I find the changes regarding the Destination header confusing.

1) In the Changes section, the spec claims...

"Tightened requirement for "Destination:" header to work with path values"

(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-09.html#rfc.section.D.1>)

Then later...:

"Removed ability for Destination header to take "abs_path" in order to keep
consistent with other places where client provides URLs (If header, href element
in request body)"

(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-09.html#rfc.section.E.1>)

As a matter of fact, the Destination header in RFC2518 already was defined as
being an "absoluteURI"
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.9.3>).

RFC2518bis still says "absolute-URI" (this is an update from RFC2396 to
RFC3986), but then says:

"If the Destination value is an absolute URI, it may name a different server (or
different port or scheme). If the source server cannot attempt a copy to the
remote server, it MUST fail the request with a 502 (Bad Gateway) response."

(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-09.html#rfc.section.9.3>).

As written this is confusing because the Destination header always is an
absolute URI.

Please clarify what the intended change is, remove the confusing language, and
fix the Changes section accordingly (if necessary).

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.