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

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 Status codes are *not* a guaranteed end-to-end signal; they can (and often are) superseded by HTTP components in the middle.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