W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

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

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:35:55 -0700
Cc: Dan Anderson <dan-anderson@cox.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <05B1EA48-AB8A-4450-B238-73B12ECF3F19@gbiv.com>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>
On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:

> 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.

Yes, plus the response is not authoritative (not from the server that the
client is expecting a response).

> 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 am not sure if we considered it or not -- it would be nice to make use
of the Location header field.  Mark?

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 22:36:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:54 UTC