- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 23:02:58 +0000
- To: Rory Hewitt <rory.hewitt@gmail.com>
- cc: Richard Roda <richard_roda@hotmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- Rory Hewitt writes: > 1. From a purely technical POV, how does this differ from 400 Bad Request, > which is currently used for this sort of thing - clearly it's up to the > server to make the decision that the client is 'impaired' rather than just > sending an invalid request, but how does it do that? I have one scenario, where certain requests (POST/PUT) are only allowed if the client comes in through a VPN, whereas GET/HEAD are publically available. It would be nice to have a way to tell the client "Forgot something, did you ?" without resorting to redirection and the many other ways to ruin the "back" facility in the browser, but you would still need an out-of-band channel to make the users associate 420 with "duh!" So yeah, nice idea, and I get the joke, but think 418 has the "funny status code" market sewn up... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 11 December 2023 23:03:11 UTC