W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Upload negotiation

From: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:17:57 +0200
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1207667877.31831.249.camel@HenrikLaptop>

ons 2008-04-09 klockan 02:46 +1200 skrev Adrien de Croy:

> e.g the status codes.  The set for 1.0 is relatively small.  If a sender 
> is sending a status code back, surely it's required to sanitise it for 
> the recipient?  Or does it expect a downstream agent to pass it through 
> yet only understand the major error code.

Even in HTTP/1.0 the set of status codes is extensible and clients MUST
be prepared to deal with status codes they haven't seen before.. but
they obviously do not need to be prepared to take automatic actions to
correct errors they know nothing about..

Thats one reason why the status codes is divided into xYY groups, where
x being the major indication on how the status should be dealt with. If
the exact xYY status isn't known it's to be dealt with as x00 which is
the default status if none of the other in the relevant group applies..

Quote from rfc1945:

   applications must understand the class of any status code, as
   indicated by the first digit, and treat any unrecognized response as
   being equivalent to the x00 status code of that class, with the

the exact same text also in 2616 but more formal..

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 15:21:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC