- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:51:46 -0500
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Nov 1, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote: > > Hi, > > Section 2.1.4 of the Sept 14th WD indicates that QueryRequestRefused > > " > ...must be returned when a client submits a request that the server > is unable or unwilling to process, perhaps because of resource > consumption or other policy considerations. The > QueryRequestRefused fault message does not indicate whether the > server may or may not process a subsequent, identical request or > requests. > " > > This fault message is currently associated with an HTTP 500 > response code. > > There may be a variety of reasons that a server may refuse a > message, some of which are discussed in Section 3 on Policy > Considerations: resource limitations, and abuse detection. > > These are quite different failure modes and it would be useful to be > able to distinguish between them. Without that facility a client > cannot > legitimately know whether it can retry its request, or for how long > the server may be unavailable. > > This additional feature could be supported by allowing a choice in > response codes: > > * 503 Service Unavailable, optionally with a Retry-After header, to > indicate temporary unavailability and an estimated time after which > the > request can be retried > > * 403 Forbidden to refuse abusive requests and indicate that a retry > is not permissible. Leigh, The latest editor's draft of the protocol spec: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/ includes reworked language about WSDL faults (serialized as HTTP status codes) and about HTTP status codes (which are conceptually distinct and distinguishable on-the-wire). Please let us know whether these changes sufficient address yr comments? Cheers, Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 21:52:06 UTC