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

Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:18:42 +1100
Cc: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B5A9C47C-ABF4-43DF-B0C8-FABF9CF0A32B@mnot.net>
To: Dan Anderson <dan-anderson@cox.net>
I don't think that would be workable; 407 is specifically for proxies -- i.e., intermediaries interposed with the involvement of the client, not intercepting proxies. I have a suspicion that there will be clients whose code paths for 407 will behave badly if they're not expecting it on the wire. 

Cheers, 


On 20/10/2011, at 4:15 PM, Dan Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I kind of like that idea.
> 
> OT: It makes me wonder if something similar could be done to 401.
> 
> Thanks
> Dan
> 
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:44 PM, James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It would seem to me that a 407 with a
>> Proxy-Authenticate using a hypothetical "form" auth scheme and a
>> Location header could be applied to the same purpose without requiring
>> the introduction of a new response code... e.g.
>> 
>> HTTP/1.1 407 Proxy Authentication Required
>> Location: http://foo.example.com/proxy_login
>> Proxy-Authenticate: form
>> 
>> Just a thought...
>> 
>> - James
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 05:19:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:48 GMT