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

Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's.

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:31:07 +1200
Message-ID: <488FA83B.6060204@qbik.com>
To: Jeff Currier <Jeff.Currier@microsoft.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jason Hunter <Jason.Hunter@microsoft.com>


Who is the intended recipient for any message containing a new code?  A 
UA, or a human?

If a human using a web browser, then you can print back any message you 
like in the body, and use any 4xx code to get it showing, and I don't 
see any need for any more codes.

If on the other hand you need the agent to be able to distinguish 
between quota/policy and other issues, then you'd need some extended 
protocol to communicate specifics, and some user agents that implement 
this as well.

As for 403, you only get a password popup if you add an WWW-Authenticate 
header, so just don't put in this header, and the UA won't pop (none 
I've seen will) a dialog, so no user confusion.  You also get to specify 
the content of the message displayed in the browser window.

Cheers

Adrien


Jeff Currier wrote:
> Julian,
>
> After reading a bit more on the use 507 status code I'm still concerned that this is very much related to Storage and would not be broad enough to encompass all the of the scenarios that we have (bandwidth quota violations, storage violations, application object quota violations, etc).  It still seems that a more general status code is needed.
>
> Now, to Robert's earlier mention of the use of 403.  The concern there again is still the idea that people will confuse this with the password issue.  I appreciate that the spec does call out that the request was correctly formed, the server understood the request and that the reissue of the request will have no effect but in practice most users, IMHO, will simply only check their passwords.  I think the fact that we see so many other services not using 403 for this sort of thing supports this conclusion.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --Jeff--
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:11 PM
> To: Jeff Currier
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's.
>
> Jeff Currier wrote:
>   
>> Frank,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think a new status code would likely be the best move.  We're
>> attempting to enforce quota's around bandwidth, storage used, and some
>> other application specific constraints.  Moreover, I think the notion of
>> quota's as they apply to new services seems like a something many new
>> services would use.
>>
>>
>>
>> We also found that WebDav introduced some that would kind of work.
>> Specifically, 507(InsufficientStorage) comes to mind however this really
>> isn't completely sufficient for our use cases.  Additionally, when I
>> think of the other scenarios that have come up issuing too many requests
>> within a specific period of time, etc it really doesn't map very well
>> since there is a very specific meaning behind that status code.
>> ...
>>     
>
> See: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4331.html#rfc.section.6>
>
> BR, Julian
>
>
>   

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 23:29:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:53 GMT