Re: Quota Enforcement and the communication of violations of policy using HttpStatusCode's.


I think a new status code would likely be the best move.  We're attempting to enforce quota's around bandwidth, storage used, and some other application specific constraints.  Moreover, I think the notion of quota's as they apply to new services seems like a something many new services would use.

We also found that WebDav introduced some that would kind of work.  Specifically, 507(InsufficientStorage) comes to mind however this really isn't completely sufficient for our use cases.  Additionally, when I think of the other scenarios that have come up issuing too many requests within a specific period of time, etc it really doesn't map very well since there is a very specific meaning behind that status code.

Jeff Currier wrote:

> we don't really want to invent our own status code so the
> team thought it would be best if we brought our problem to
> the working group to discuss this issue

You could stick to 403 for HTTP/1.0 (old clients) if that's
in any way relevant for your scenario, and pick another code
for HTTP/1.1 if it has a more desirable effect.  Could say
"402" do what you want, are you asking how to register a new
HTTP error code, or do you want a better documentation for
an existing code in 2616bis ?


Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 20:39:45 UTC