- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:13:59 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 12/2/11 3:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-12-02 22:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 8/15/11 5:47 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> >>> On 14/08/2011, at 3:03 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Mark, >>>> >>>> I also think APPSAWG can be appropriate for discussion and >>>> processing this document. >>>> >>>> I recall the existence of non-standard 444 status code, which stands >>>> for 'No Response' and is currently used by nginx servers. Should we >>>> standardize it? I'll describe briefly. I suppose the semantics are >>>> "due to some reasons the server has chosen to close the connection >>>> and return no response to the user"; thus the body in 444 response >>>> must be empty. 444 responses must not be stored by the caches, and >>>> receiving one should not prevent the user from retrying opening the >>>> connection once more. 444 responses should not be generated by >>>> intermediaries; they can only be given by the origin servers. >>> >>> What's the advantage over just closing the connection? >>> >>> >>>> Another widely-used (and probably even more often than 444) is 509, >>>> 'Bandwidth Limit Exceeded'. This is returned when a server or an >>>> intermediary encounters the situation when due to the limitation of >>>> the bandwidth it is unable to process client's request or server's >>>> response, respectively. No caching is allowed as well; >>>> "Retry-After" may be present. I think we can standardize this >>>> status code as well. >>> >>> Hmm. I could see this as a server-side version of 'limit exceeded' I >>> suppose... interesting. >> >> Interesting enough to include in draft-nottingham-http-new-status? >> >> (Yes, I am reviewing that I-D so that I can create the proto writeup.) >> ... > > Well, at some point we need to stop :-). I'd also like to propose a > fixed version of 302 (as 307 "fixes" 301), but I'll have to do more > homework. > > We can repeat this exercise every few years; let's get those that have > we have now defined and registered! Agreed. I just wanted to make sure we had agreement on the scope now. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 22:14:36 UTC