- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:52:25 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Personally - I think 413 is good for this; the response body and/or headers can fine-tune as to why it was rejected (as with any other error response). Recall that we've already tuned the definition of 413 to say The server is refusing to process a request because the request representation is larger than the server is willing or able to process. note 'representation' -- which includes headers. Cheers, On 30/06/2011, at 10:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi, > > I quickly ran some tests, and the results are (with what I suppose are the default settings): > > Apache-Coyote/1.1 (Tomcat): > > Limit for a single header field: ~8000 > Limit for all fields: ~8000 > Status Code: 400 > > Apache/2.2.14: > > Limit for a single header field: ~8180 > Limit for all fields: > 16000 > Status Code: 400 > > microsoft.com: > > Limit for a single header field: ~16000 > Limit for all fields: ~16000 > Status Code: 400 > > google.com: > > Limit for a single header field: ~15400 > Limit for all fields: > 15400 > Status Code: 400 (413 for the larger values) > > > So 413 doesn't seem to be used in general for this case. > > Should it? In that case we should clarify the spec... > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 03:52:52 UTC