- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:58:04 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Sorry about that -- I'll blame both a brain fart and I lost access to bugzilla immediately after I entered this so I couldn't change it. I do see how a 4xx error is better because the same request won't succeed later. Which 4xx response though? Lisa On Dec 1, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu wrote: >> http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11 >> lisa@osafoundation.org changed: >> What |Removed |Added >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------ >> AssignedTo|lisa@osafoundation.org >> |julian.reschke@greenbytes.de >> Status|ASSIGNED |NEW >> ------- Additional Comments From lisa@osafoundation.org 2005-11-30 >> 14:42 ------- >> I didn't understand the part about removing the section on 503 -- >> what's wrong >> with it? The part about XML entities I've fixed. > > We discussed this during the conference call: 5xx is a server error, > in particular 503 means "not now but maybe later". If a server detects > a DOS attack, that's the last thing it would want to tell the client. > > Servers are free to do whatever they want should they detect a DOS > attack. If they want to be friendly, a 4xx with explanation would be > right. > > Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2005 18:58:18 UTC