- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:09:22 +1300
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
407 also implicitly says try again, whereas 403 says don't... so I'm leaning towards the 403. I guess the number of web browsers this will affect is about 0... so only un-manned applications will see this regards Adrien On 9/12/2011 3:03 p.m., Adrien de Croy wrote: > > that was my initial though too, but in this case we'd already sent a > 407 with advertised methods, so the client already got it wrong once... > > Regards > > Adrien > > > On 9/12/2011 3:02 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: >> I think that'd be a 407; this basically says "here is the list of >> accepted auth methods" and the client can put two and two together... >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> On 09/12/2011, at 12:57 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> hopefully a quick question... >>> >>> what is the best response code for a proxy that receives a request >>> with a Proxy-Authorization header that specifies a method that is >>> not acceptable to the proxy? >>> >>> another 407? >>> 403? We don't want the client to repeat the request as is... >>> >>> or do we need a new status code for "auth method not allowed". >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Adrien de Croy >>> >>> -- >>> Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com >>> WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/ >>> >>> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/
Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 02:09:46 UTC