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: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:16:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iurnW9j+vmRGgz3AffuFDO_yucUoSgHSLLZ5TPoYW-S9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Yeah, if you look at RFC2616 sections 10.4 (4xx) and 10.5 (5xx), you can
make a good case that it doesn’t belong in either.   I just don’t believe
you can make a bullet-proof argument for either range.

The reasons I currently favor 4xx are:

- Lots of client software simply tries to sweep 5xx errors under the carpet
(“Something went terribly wrong upstream, don’t bother your pretty little
- I liked the value 451


On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> 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.
> ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 15:16:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:02 UTC