W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > January 2006

Re: HTTP Status Codes for QueryRequestRefused

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:01:42 -0500
Message-Id: <ADC08BB8-6E16-4118-9237-33FB899FE046@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>

On Nov 1, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:

> These are quite different failure modes and it would be useful to be
> able to distinguish between them. Without that facility a client  
> cannot
> legitimately know whether it can retry its request, or for how long
> the server may be unavailable.

I think the WG was aware of these implications of choosing only a  
single fault and overloading it for different conditions. There's not  
been any interest in defining additional faults and serializing them  
with different HTTP codes as you suggest.

> This additional feature could be supported by allowing a choice in
> response codes:

Hmm, no, I don't believe that's possible in WSDL. We'd have to define  
two additional faults.

> * 503 Service Unavailable, optionally with a Retry-After header, to
> indicate temporary unavailability and an estimated time after which  
> the
> request can be retried

ServiceUnavailable (or some such), though I'm not sure how to specify  
the Retry-After header.

> * 403 Forbidden to refuse abusive requests and indicate that a retry
> is not permissible.

As for this, I don't see what it adds as distinct from  
QueryReqRefused. I mean, I'm not sure you can say that a request is  
abusive *per se*. It may depend on local conditions and those change.  
Just not sure.


PS--I somehow missed this message when you originally sent it. Sorry  
I'm so late responding.
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 05:01:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:07 UTC