- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:35:55 -0700
- To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>
- Cc: Dan Anderson <dan-anderson@cox.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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? ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 22:36:58 UTC