W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: New Version Notification for draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-00.txt

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:51:24 +0200
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120613055124.GB20619@1wt.eu>
Hi Roy,

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:35:12PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> 
> > Aaaaaaaand, it turns out MNot was right; I checked with an expert, and 451 is heavily used for ?redirect? in the Msft ecosystem, notably including HotMail?s hundreds of millions of users.  Consider it ?4xx? (which I would still argue for as opposed to 5xx).  -T
> 
> 4xx indicates an error by the user or user agent.  I don't see
> any reason (aside from literary) that would justify using a 4xx
> code for this.  5xx is typically used for non-authoritative
> responses or server-imposed limitations -- a status that might
> be different if the user agent chose a different intermediary
> or tried again later.  Hence, 5xx makes more sense here.

I don't completely agree here : for me, 5xx means that the error is not
the client's fault and that it might randomly work if the client tries
again, which is why network errors fall into this category, as opposed
to the 4xx error by the user/user agent as you explained (and which I
agree with). If a client requests a resource that is forbidden for legal
reasons, we're typically in the situation where the user caused the error
to happen by requesting this resource, and where if he tries again he will
get the same error again. Much like 403 or 404. 5xx would be appropriate
if the server was not able to verify in a database or referential whether
the resource is legally permitted or not.

Best regards,
Willy
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 05:51:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 June 2012 05:52:05 GMT