- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:19:43 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
OK. I think I'll work on a separate draft to do this. My main concern is developers that overload existing codes in an inappropriate ways, and the pseudo-standardisation of implementation-specific ones (as we're starting to see in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes>). On 20/04/2013, at 5:14 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 05:06:08PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> On 20/04/2013, at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 02:07:52PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> p1 3.2.4 requires that a syntax violation in a received response be turned >>>> into a 502 (Bad Gateway) status code. >>>> >>>> I'm not necessarily against it, but I think if we're going to take this >>>> approach to errors in received responses, it should be systematic, and we >>>> should recommend that others do it too. Currently, a lot of people are >>>> inventing new pseudo status codes to fill this role. >>>> >>>> What do people think? >>> >>> haproxy does exactly this right now (502) and I was not aware that people >>> invent their own code, this is pretty bad :-( >> >> I'm thinking more about client libraries than intermediaries. > > OK. As was once discussed here, if we insist on no status code in the range > 100-599 to be randomly picked by a developer, we're leaving enough room for > libraries to do what they want without risk of interference. > >>>> This might not result in any changes in our specs beyond adjusting language >>>> in a few other places to do the same thing. I could see writing a separate >>>> spec for a header that described the type of error, though. >>> >>> Good idea. Alternatively the reason code after the 502 could be modulated too. >> >> That is discarded in some circumstances, and in any case we shouldn't >> encourage people to start using it for semantically significant things... > > Agreed. > > Willy > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 04:20:10 UTC