+1 on this... but... I'm wondering if the spec should take some care to differentiate the "511 Network Authentication Required" and "407 Proxy Authentication Required" response codes. Strictly off the language in the spec, the two responses are virtually identical, with the only exception that the 511 Response does not require the use of the Proxy-Authenticate header. It would seem to me that a 407 with a Proxy-Authenticate using a hypothetical "form" auth scheme and a Location header could be applied to the same purpose without requiring the introduction of a new response code... e.g. HTTP/1.1 407 Proxy Authentication Required Location: http://foo.example.com/proxy_login Proxy-Authenticate: form Just a thought... - James On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > [snip] >> 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 23:44:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:26 UTC