- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 12:43:53 +1100
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
If we created a new status code to address every brain-dead client behaviour, we'd fast run out. Regards, On 09/12/2011, at 6:54 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > > my gut tells me responding with a 407 is more likely to result in request looping. > > 403 shuts it down (or should). > > browser behaviour when you send a 407 back when a client considers auth should be complete, results in the browser popping a login dialog. > > But since there are few browsers, and I'm pretty sure they all honour the advertised methods, we won't see this - just headless agents. > > Maybe we need a new status code... > > > On 9/12/2011 8:47 p.m., Daniel Stenberg wrote: >> On Fri, 9 Dec 2011, Adrien de Croy wrote: >> >>> 407 also implicitly says try again, whereas 403 says don't... so I'm leaning towards the 403. >>> >>> I guess the number of web browsers this will affect is about 0... so only un-manned applications will see this >> >> Surely 407 is already in wide use for this? I would expect many proxies to just not care about non-supported auth methods and since it didn't find a correct auth header, it would respond with a 407. >> >> And in regards to it saying the client should try again, I consider it similar to sending an auth header with bad credentials compared to no credentials. The client must know what it did before when it gets a 407 back, and then change it accordingly before it tries again. >> > > -- > Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 10 December 2011 01:44:23 UTC