W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 10:31:27 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6bb9aedd-0b7e-007a-8197-ac157c08b0f1@gmx.de>
On 2019-01-08 10:11, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
>>>> It talks about status codes in general; that includes new ones, no?
>>> Potentially, but new status codes are required to be generic, not application-specific, so it ends up in the same place. Status codes are *not* a guaranteed end-to-end signal; they can (and often are) superseded by HTTP components in the middle.
>>
>> Under certain well-understood circumstances, by design, or when there is a bug. My point is that they usually are reliable when the actual origin servers gets to respond.
> 
> Well-understood by implementers, perhaps, but often not application designers.
> 
>> I'm concerned that the current text will cause people to stuff all information into header fields or the payload, and just send 400.
> 
> Yes. Unless you want to intentionally trigger generic HTTP processing based upon a chosen status code, that's best practice.
> ...

This is really news to me. This probably requires a new top-level thread.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2019 09:31:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 8 January 2019 09:31:59 UTC