W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate?

From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 11:46:12 -0700
Message-ID: <4DE142F4.2090209@gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
203 is an appropriate reply for origin servers that do not accept 
cookies or want to apply such strictness (or alertness) other than 
simply ignore such headers. It may be harder to pinpoint software that 
actively uses it other than for backward compatibility or tolerance of 
header style metadata.

No on deprecate because that is appropriate for origin servers' 
recognition of such information. UA could simply say, "I didn't require 
or request any extra metadata, so 203 means don't use the request, don't 
reply to the query, and do appropriate error." Whereas, the 
application(U) just turns 203 into 200 for greater compatibility.

Message queues is one example of such UA. People "should" use some sort 
of message queue, or similar UA database, instead of cookies.

In re: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02716.html

There could be the hint for "status-203" to trigger an error (409) 
instead of compatibility (200). (Also apropos to UK's anti-cookie law.)

I'm glad you brought this up because I wondered yesterday how-to enforce 
the simple GET/PUT with no extra headers. The intent would be to 
tokenize the entire header data as one single packet that could be 
stored as session data in the UA, given any UUID. That is logically the 
same as header compression, especially if out of all queries the only 
difference is body content and resource path. That could further let the 
entire tokenized header into private URLs: "GET 
/Header-UUID/Private-UUID/(XPath)..." and where the message is "simply" 
XHTML.

The stateless/stateful debate I think has delayed such usage of private 
URLs and UAs. One reason why SOCKS5 still has support... mystery why 
it's not more standard in regards to TLS and hypermedia.

On 05/27/2011 10:14 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-14#section-8.2.4
>
> Does anyone know of software that actually does something useful with this status code?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>    


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
Received on Saturday, 28 May 2011 18:54:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:41 GMT