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

Re: status code for header fields to big

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:52:25 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EFF708EF-5D32-429D-A3ED-0C5D6E99E129@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Personally - I think 413 is good for this; the response body and/or headers can fine-tune as to why it was rejected (as with any other error response).

Recall that we've already tuned the definition of 413 to say 

   The server is refusing to process a request because the request
   representation is larger than the server is willing or able to
   process.

note 'representation' -- which includes headers.

Cheers,


On 30/06/2011, at 10:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I quickly ran some tests, and the results are (with what I suppose are the default settings):
> 
> Apache-Coyote/1.1 (Tomcat):
> 
> Limit for a single header field: ~8000
> Limit for all fields: ~8000
> Status Code: 400
> 
> Apache/2.2.14:
> 
> Limit for a single header field: ~8180
> Limit for all fields: > 16000
> Status Code: 400
> 
> microsoft.com:
> 
> Limit for a single header field: ~16000
> Limit for all fields: ~16000
> Status Code: 400
> 
> google.com:
> 
> Limit for a single header field: ~15400
> Limit for all fields: > 15400
> Status Code: 400 (413 for the larger values)
> 
> 
> So 413 doesn't seem to be used in general for this case.
> 
> Should it? In that case we should clarify the spec...
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 03:52:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:43 GMT