- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:36:13 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I notice that 413 didn't end up in draft-nottingham-http-new-status (although it does have "431 Request Header Fields Too Large"). Where did we end up on this one? On 6/30/11 9:52 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Personally - I think 413 is good for this; the response body and/or headers can fine-tune as to why it was rejected (as with any other error response). > > Recall that we've already tuned the definition of 413 to say > > The server is refusing to process a request because the request > representation is larger than the server is willing or able to > process. > > note 'representation' -- which includes headers. > > Cheers, > > > On 30/06/2011, at 10:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I quickly ran some tests, and the results are (with what I suppose are the default settings): >> >> Apache-Coyote/1.1 (Tomcat): >> >> Limit for a single header field: ~8000 >> Limit for all fields: ~8000 >> Status Code: 400 >> >> Apache/2.2.14: >> >> Limit for a single header field: ~8180 >> Limit for all fields: > 16000 >> Status Code: 400 >> >> microsoft.com: >> >> Limit for a single header field: ~16000 >> Limit for all fields: ~16000 >> Status Code: 400 >> >> google.com: >> >> Limit for a single header field: ~15400 >> Limit for all fields: > 15400 >> Status Code: 400 (413 for the larger values) >> >> >> So 413 doesn't seem to be used in general for this case. >> >> Should it? In that case we should clarify the spec... >> >> >>
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 21:36:50 UTC