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

Re: status code for header fields to big

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:36:13 -0700
Message-ID: <4ED944CD.4050803@stpeter.im>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I notice that 413 didn't end up in draft-nottingham-http-new-status
(although it does have "431 Request Header Fields Too Large"). Where did
we end up on this one?

On 6/30/11 9:52 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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...
>>
>>
>>
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 21:36:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT