Subject: Re: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.507

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:39:46 -0500

In section 5.5 the 507 error code is written as "507 (Cross-Server Binding
Forbidden): The server is unable to create the requested binding because it
would bind a segment in a collection on one server to a resource on a
different server."

        What does a server have to do with anything? If you try to bind two
resources in different volumes on a FrontPage server the server will have
to fail the BIND even though the resources are on the same server. In
general bringing in the server is almost always a bad idea since resources
can be spread out all over the place and the reasons for various failures
may or may not have anything to do with how those resources are laid out on
the servers. As such I move that the language for the 507 error code be
altered to read that the resource was unable to create a binding to a
destination and to leave the matter at that. All mentions of the word
server should be stricken.

Hmmm.  I don't have a strong preference on whether we should create a new
status code for lack of support for remote connections.  At some point we
might find we need one.   Anyway.... the status code that you're suggesting
doesn't seem to suggest anything except that the server can't do it.
Can't we just use 500 for that?   And if so, shouldn't we mention 500 it in
the spec?  Or is 500 too obvious to mention?

---

From: "Slein, Judith A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:48:34 -0500

I don't have a strong commitment to 507 either, but for what it's worth the
rationale was that any creation of a cross-server binding requires
out-of-band collaboration between the servers.  So it seems very likely that
a lot of servers will fail requests to create a binding to a resource on
another server, so it seems useful to have an error code for this case.

--Judy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:40 PM
> To: Yaron Goland
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.507
> 
> 
> 
> >>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:15:37 -0500

out-of-band collaboration between the servers.  So it seems very likely
that
In addition, it is something that the clients understand and can take
action
on.  They almost certainly know when they are requesting a cross server
binding
and if they see a 507 then they probably will realize that bindings aren't
supported between the two servers specified in this request... and
therefore
the clients will stop trying.

OTOH, clients probably don't know where the
boundaries between file systems are within the URI namespace so they will
have
difficulty knowing which bindings are allowed and which aren't if a machine
refuses to create bindings across file systems.  In other words, they can't
take much action in the situation that Yaron mentioned so for the time
being,
there's probably not much point in using anything other than 500 in the
situation he mentioned

---

From: Yaron Goland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 02:32:15 -0800

My point is that the binding could fail not due to cross-server anything but
an intra-server something. That is why I brought up the FrontPage example.
If you try to bind between volumes it will fail. Yet given the current
definition FrontPage could not use a 507 in that case. That just seems
broken. That is why I wanted to widen the language so it could cover the
cross-volume scenario.

		Yaron

> From: Slein, Judith A [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 5:49 PM
> To: [email-masked]'; Yaron Goland
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.507
> 
>