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

Re: Indicating response errors after the status-line is sent

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:17:53 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1205446673.10356.40.camel@HenrikLaptop>

On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:45 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> already sent isn't appropriate (e.g., it's streaming a response and  
> has a catastrophic error), as a way to indicate an error.
> Thoughts? Does such a practice conflict with this:
> > 13.8 Errors or Incomplete Response Cache Behavior
> > A cache that receives an incomplete response (for example, with  
> > fewer bytes of data than specified in a Content-Length header) MAY  
> > store the response. However, the cache MUST treat this as a partial  
> > response. Partial responses MAY be combined as described in section  
> > 13.5.4; the result might be a full response or might still be  
> > partial. A cache MUST NOT return a partial response to a client  
> > without explicitly marking it as such, using the 206 (Partial  
> > Content) status code. A cache MUST NOT return a partial response  
> > using a status code of 200 (OK).

I don't see how it conflicts. If there is a more fatal condition
underlying the "temporary/network failure" (as seen by the client/proxy)
then this will be found out when attempting to fill in the gaps.

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 22:19:05 UTC

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