- From: Roberto Polli <roberto@teamdigitale.governo.it>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:29:37 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi @all, Il giorno mar 8 gen 2019 alle ore 10:34 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> ha scritto: > > 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 Status codes are *not* a guaranteed end-to-end signal; they can (and often are) superseded by HTTP components in the middle.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. FWIW I agree with Julian. Have a nice day, R.
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2019 13:30:12 UTC