- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:23:47 +1200
- To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14.06.2012 04:33, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:20:12AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> If the client retries the request, it might indeed work again -- >> depending >> > on what network path they're using, etc. That's why all of the >> > intermediation-focused errors are in 5xx. >> > >> >> Hm? Surely the expectation would be the opposite; legislative/legal >> changes typically have timeframes measured in years or at the >> quickest >> months. -T > > I agree Tim. In my opinion it's just like a "403 forbidden" with a > specific > reason for this being administratively forbidden. > > Willy Would these types of differentiation between reasons for rejection be a good case for Warning: codes on a 403 response? ie Warning: ... Legal Restriction Warning: ... Local administrative policy Warning: ... Authentication failed too many times. Your account is now closed ... The body of 403 can as easily contain the legal disclaimer text as any other 4xx code. AYJ
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 23:24:14 UTC