- From: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:32:33 +0000
- To: Jeff Currier <Jeff.Currier@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 11:48:18 UTC
On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 13:39 -0700, Jeff Currier wrote: > > 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. 400 is not a good fit as it claims a malformed request. 403 however seems ideal - the description of 403 is very clear that authorization will not help and that the request was correctly formed and understandable but that the server is choosing not to honour it. For instance HTTP/1.1 403 Bandwidth quota exceeded HTTP/1.1 403 Disk quota exceeded etc -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 11:48:18 UTC