Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 from Dan Anderson on 2011-10-20 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2011)

From: Dan Anderson <dan-anderson@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:15:42 -0500
To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAN5uf-SR2H6rssUFHyvmxEvgWMb5wev3zHCBAs8EG8JpvHUS-w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I kind of like that idea.

OT: It makes me wonder if something similar could be done to 401.

Thanks
Dan

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:44 PM, James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 05:16:12 UTC