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: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:19:56 +1200
Message-ID: <4FF3EE9C.6080402@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 4/07/2012 1:58 a.m., John Sullivan wrote:
> 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?

Also, caching intermediaries serving from cache?


>
>>   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
> URI/client.

+1.

>
>>   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.

+1.

AYJ
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 07:20:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 July 2012 07:20:33 GMT