W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p1: generating "internal" errors

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:03:54 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130420070354.GH26517@1wt.eu>
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 02:07:52PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> p1 3.2.4 requires that a syntax violation in a received response be turned
> into a 502 (Bad Gateway) status code.
> I'm not necessarily against it, but I think if we're going to take this
> approach to errors in received responses, it should be systematic, and we
> should recommend that others do it too. Currently, a lot of people are
> inventing new pseudo status codes to fill this role.
> What do people think?

haproxy does exactly this right now (502) and I was not aware that people
invent their own code, this is pretty bad :-(

> This might not result in any changes in our specs beyond adjusting language
> in a few other places to do the same thing. I could see writing a separate
> spec for a header that described the type of error, though.

Good idea. Alternatively the reason code after the 502 could be modulated too.

Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 07:04:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC