Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate?

Hmm. I see that we have warn code 214, "Transformation applied," which makes me wonder about the relationship (whether or not we go with the proposal below).


On 30/05/2011, at 10:31 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 
> Current:
> 
> """
> 8.2.4.  203 Non-Authoritative Information
> 
> The returned metadata in the header fields is not the definitive set as available from the origin server, but is gathered from a local or a third-party copy.  The set presented MAY be a subset or superset of the original version.  For example, including local annotation information about the resource might result in a superset of the metadata known by the origin server.  Use of this response code is not required and is only appropriate when the response would otherwise be 200 (OK).
> 
> Caches MAY use a heuristic (see Section 2.3.1.1 of [Part6]) to determine freshness for 203 responses.
> """
> 
> Proposed:
> 
> 
> """
> 8.2.4.  203 Non-Authoritative Information
> 
> The representation in the response has been transformed or otherwise modified by a non-transparent proxy [ref to p1].  Note that the behaviour of non-transparent intermediaries is controlled by the no-transform Cache-Control dirctive [ref to p6].
> 
> This status code is only appropriate when the response status code would have been 200 (OK).
> 
> Caches MAY use a heuristic (see Section 2.3.1.1 of [Part6]) to determine freshness for 203 responses.
> """
> 
> 
> 
> On 30/05/2011, at 9:25 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> On 30/05/2011, at 8:51 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 
>>> On May 27, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> 
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-14#section-8.2.4
>>>> 
>>>> Does anyone know of software that actually does something useful with this status code?
>>> 
>>> 203 is for annotation proxies and other intermediaries that add something to
>>> the response.  It is the only way to indicate that contents have changed from
>>> the origin's response, which may be important for sigs/MACs, so I would not
>>> want to deprecate it.
>> 
>> OK. I'd like to clarify it so that this is more apparent; i.e., the semantic is "this has been transformed" (perhaps linking it into no-transform's semantics), because I've seen some people interpret this as "it's a cached response."
>> 
>> Will come up with a proposal.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 04:28:11 UTC