RE: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02

On 2011-10-20 at 05:05:33, Dan Anderson wrote:
> 1.  Section 6:  Why is this a 5xx status code and not a 4xx status 
> code?  It seems to me like a client problem (failure to present 
> appropriate credentials) and thus more appropriate as a 4xx status 
> code.

My guess: because there is nothing inherently wrong with the _HTTP_ request, a 4xx response might be misconstrued as an indication that it needs modification somehow.

I wonder if a 3xx response was considered.  Since the typical scenario involves redirection, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine 3xx.

I'm sure you could skin this particular cat any number of ways.

--Martin

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 22:01:28 UTC