W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:13:59 -0700
Message-ID: <4ED94DA7.7070903@stpeter.im>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 12/2/11 3:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-12-02 22:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 8/15/11 5:47 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> On 14/08/2011, at 3:03 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>>> Hello Mark,
>>>> I also think APPSAWG can be appropriate for discussion and
>>>> processing this document.
>>>> I recall the existence of non-standard 444 status code, which stands
>>>> for 'No Response' and is currently used by nginx servers.  Should we
>>>> standardize it?  I'll describe briefly.  I suppose the semantics are
>>>> "due to some reasons the server has chosen to close the connection
>>>> and return no response to the user"; thus the body in 444 response
>>>> must be empty.  444 responses must not be stored by the caches, and
>>>> receiving one should not prevent the user from retrying opening the
>>>> connection once more.  444 responses should not be generated by
>>>> intermediaries; they can only be given by the origin servers.
>>> What's the advantage over just closing the connection?
>>>> Another widely-used (and probably even more often than 444) is 509,
>>>> 'Bandwidth Limit Exceeded'.  This is returned when a server or an
>>>> intermediary encounters the situation when due to the limitation of
>>>> the bandwidth it is unable to process client's request or server's
>>>> response, respectively.  No caching is allowed as well;
>>>> "Retry-After" may be present.  I think we can standardize this
>>>> status code as well.
>>> Hmm. I could see this as a server-side version of 'limit exceeded' I
>>> suppose... interesting.
>> Interesting enough to include in draft-nottingham-http-new-status?
>> (Yes, I am reviewing that I-D so that I can create the proto writeup.)
>> ...
> Well, at some point we need to stop :-). I'd also like to propose a
> fixed version of 302 (as 307 "fixes" 301), but I'll have to do more
> homework.
> We can repeat this exercise every few years; let's get those that have
> we have now defined and registered!

Agreed. I just wanted to make sure we had agreement on the scope now.


Peter Saint-Andre
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 22:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:54 UTC