Re: HTTP Status Codes for QueryRequestRefused

Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
>>Kendall,
>>
>>Thnaks for finding that extract - it certainly helps me.
> 
> 
> Glad to hear it.
> 
> 
>>Given that faults are an open set, then we just need to be sure  
>>that the language of the SPARQL protocol is not providing a  
>>stronger condition.
> 
> 
> It doens't. It provides a *weaker* one, that is, a more specific one.  
> QueryRequestRefused *must* be returned *when* the service refuses to  
> process a request. Under no other condition does the must apply.

Example: service refuses a request because for a security access issue.

It would like to be more specific than 500, sending 403.

(From the client's point of view, I read "refuse" as covering all and any 
circumstances other than a bad request when a service is not going to execute 
a request.  "Unable" because of some issue like local security policy is a 
refusal).

	Andy

> 
> 
>>  It does do that for QueryRequestRefused where it places a "must"  
>>requirment (MalformedQuery only uses "should").
> 
> 
> Well, Malformed has two bits: you should return it but you *must* not  
> return a 2xx status code.
> 
> I sincerely don't see the problem you see.
> 
> Do you have any text you'd add to the spec in light of our  
> conversation and the WSDL quote about faults and open sets and the like?
> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall