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

Like I said, I'm not necessarily against 3xx.

I'm a *bit* concerned that we've had a fair amount of attention on the latest draft, and there's a certain amount of momentum as a result.

If there's a tangible benefit to switching, that's great; however, it *looks* like there are arguments / reasons for all of the status codes (we started at 4xx, now 5xx, next 3xx? Perhaps we should consider 1xx too? ;)  So, all else equal, I'd rather just leave it as-is. 

In any case, if we are going to change, it should be done soon.

On 22/10/2011, at 9:30 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 20/10/2011, at 9:35 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>> 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?
>> I think it was discussed a long time ago, in the previous draft. We can't assume that existing clients will treat a 3xx with a Location as a redirect, so it's of limited value (now) to use 3xx.
> I don't see why that matters -- if they don't redirect, then the content
> will be displayed (just like 511).
>> Also, redirection status codes currently all have a semantic of "the thing you're looking for is over there." In this case, that wouldn't be true. I know that's not a codified semantic of 3xx, but it does lead to a one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other situation.
> That wasn't true in the past.  I guess it might be now that we removed
> 305 (and ignored 306).  3xx was defined as "The client must take additional
> action to complete the request."
>> And, of course, we can always specify the use of Location on 511 (for what good it will do).
> Not much.  The advantage of 511 could be that an authentication form
> can be in the 511 content and not require an additional redirect,
> though I personally prefer the redirect because it allows the
> browser to use stored credentials or form-filling features to
> quickly satisfy the portal.  OTOH, that does have some security
> problems of its own.
> ....Roy

Mark Nottingham

Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 00:39:51 UTC