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

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