Subject: BIND issue: 4_SPECIAL OVERWRITE_STATUS

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:58:46 +0100

Hi,

back in October, Stefan Eissing wrote:

> Maybe it would be more appropriate to reuse the response codes as
> defined for MOVE in RFC 2518:
>
> 201: newly created
> 204: replaced existing resource
>etc.

I agree. MOVE should be identical to BIND/DELETE, and therefore consistency
with MOVE response codes seems to make sense.

Proposal:

Add the sentence:

"In case of success, the server SHOULD return 201 (Created) when a new
binding was created and 204 (No Content) when an existing binding was
replaced".

Julian

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

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:01:38 +0100

Back in October, Geoff Clemm wrote:

> If we handled it the way proposed below, the old clients will just ignore
> the new element, and the user will incorrectly conclude that the
collection
> had no child by that name.  With the original proposal, users of
> old clients will be told that there is a child, and will get the
> error message that they've already seen that child, so it is
> being left out of the report.  I think the later is preferable.

I agree that introducing a new error marshalling concept just for an edge
case here (Depth: infinity and bind loop) is unnecessary, in particular if
it may confuse old clients. Therefore the issue should be closed.

Julian

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:09:09 +0100

Hi,

one other thing we'll need to change at some point are the host names that
are used in the examples (RFC2606 lists reserved domain names that can be
used).

Julian