- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:25:58 +1000
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14/06/2012, at 9:23 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 14.06.2012 04:33, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:20:12AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> >>> If the client retries the request, it might indeed work again -- depending >>> > on what network path they're using, etc. That's why all of the >>> > intermediation-focused errors are in 5xx. >>> > >>> >>> Hm? Surely the expectation would be the opposite; legislative/legal >>> changes typically have timeframes measured in years or at the quickest >>> months. -T >> >> I agree Tim. In my opinion it's just like a "403 forbidden" with a specific >> reason for this being administratively forbidden. >> >> Willy > > > Would these types of differentiation between reasons for rejection be a good case for Warning: codes on a 403 response? > > ie > Warning: ... Legal Restriction > Warning: ... Local administrative policy > Warning: ... Authentication failed too many times. Your account is now closed > ... > > The body of 403 can as easily contain the legal disclaimer text as any other 4xx code. So, again -- what's the use case for a machine consuming these? I haven't seen one yet, unless I've missed something. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 00:26:28 UTC