- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:20:41 +1000
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 23/04/2013, at 11:15 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > On 23/04/2013 3:08 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 21/04/2013, at 12:32 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> >>> On 20/04/2013 9:14 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> Several status codes are defined in terms of indicating the server's intent, without specifying what kind of server it is. >>>> >>>> I believe there are several that we can make more specific without too much controversy. Specifically, >>>> >>>> 406 Not Acceptable >>>> 409 Conflict >>> Note: Squid uses 409 Conflict to signal CVE-2009-0801 validation mismatch between DNS, TCP and HTTP state as reason for messages being rejected. It is a client-end error and more expressive of the semantic problem than 400 or 500. >> Er, that *really* isn't what 409 means; it's a conflict in the state of the *resource*. > > I think it fits. Resource O is being fetched. The information available indicates that it is *only* available on server A, B , C. Yet the client is fetching a copy from server Z. > "These droids^W^Wresource is not the one you seek." You're confusing a problem with the message (it has conflicting semantics) and the 409 status code's use case -- again, it's about the resource. See <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#status.409>. >> 400 and a body / header is probably best for that. >> >> >>>> 500 Internal Service Error >>> Disagree strongly with 500. It is intentionally the generic "server" error to be sent by any server for edge case internal errors. >> OK, I'll buy that. >> >> >>>> can, I think, all be specified as being from the origin server. >>>> >>>> And, if we are still OK with 403 Forbidden being generated by both origins and intermediaries, it may be helpful to explicitly state that. >>> Agreed on that. >> OK, it sounds like the outcome here is to note that 403 can be generated by intermediaries, at the most. Let's just make it an editorial suggestion. > > ... and what you had in mind for 406 status. Yes. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 22:21:08 UTC