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

Re: Revision of p2 2.2.1 / who can generate a status code?

From: John Sullivan <jsullivan@velocix.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:58:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4FF2FA7D.5030100@velocix.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Note that the new consideration -- identifying who can generate the status code -- implies (as Julian pointed out) that we should eat our own dogfood and define it for ours.
> Looking through p2, this was actually easier than I thought it might be; most of the status codes already are pretty specific (using phrases like "the resource indicates...", which can logically be read to make it specific to origins). The only issues of interpretation I found are marked by "!" below.
> O - Origin server (including gateways)
> I - Intermediaries (proxy or gateway)
> P - Proxies (not gateways)
> S - All servers
>  Successful 2xx
> O   200 OK

Does an intermediate selected through use of Max-Forwards count
as an origin for this purpose when fielding TRACE or OPTIONS?

>  Client Error 4xx
> O!  403 Forbidden

Definitely S - see the previous discussion around 451 where it was
widely accepted that 403 was a legitimate response from an intermediate
that was unwilling for undisclosed reasons to proxy at all for a given

>  Server Error 5xx
> S   500 Internal Server Error
> O!   501 Not Implemented

Again, if an intermediate is refusing to handle TRACE/OPTIONS
targeted at it, this would seem the appropriate response.

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 13:58:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:04 UTC