Re: [alto] Error codes in ALTO

"Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu> Tue, 10 December 2013 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <yang.r.yang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124931AE1DE for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:18:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iA04l5za05hx for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22a.google.com (mail-pb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22471AE18D for <alto@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id uo5so8247248pbc.1 for <alto@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:18:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=QW5w1Em0E6o77KMmb32LaF7svS+qdLkqJyFilw0tbzQ=; b=cmvRzxQLimQq01lljPTi5BI8yvmqSEsPBwowLmz+xCPnveJ9qDW+8p5gGnEmfB0LAW 7ea4k3TUVxxRN1i3X4OIfb0J8+GUvUg1T0uT9AStpUc4plus8vcQADItFLpzkbxbPFsv 4Va5mcZZt6VVbEG+oiWNZWZCkRERZIutcI+KnJHkKazCDu1kVOhHr1Mr6oUEkAc3IsQt xbRZSULHt5ZP0sFB+rJAPwmjDMt53cTamVwv8pLz491yFWmbAZ5a9lGRivIepMhcuVw1 KapoB3Def7HtsTkaMvzzCYP/lsaTqE4Ae722tc5WE22TdYa1q61JOvyqi9eftpVEQdxa M8Gw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.194.71 with SMTP id hu7mr29128965pbc.68.1386699504808; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:18:24 -0800 (PST)
Sender: yang.r.yang@gmail.com
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:18:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <24EF0988-16A7-458F-B764-67114377711C@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
References: <CA+cvDaY5O2mOUGEzXmCnpN31Ch_V836ELtUT=vzi7MA39orHPw@mail.gmail.com> <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040901E6ED@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CA+cvDaZhOrNdYO-nb6ZfD5hxV3jfGbRWBTz2EPqsxyq1OvCtPA@mail.gmail.com> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E9AB12A6E0A@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <CA+cvDaZ__7OUT2-YTsx8GQtJ4rhHD4cP8hYM_S1YLDWPhx0zrg@mail.gmail.com> <24EF0988-16A7-458F-B764-67114377711C@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:18:24 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pp8e8-MmTuBjLzLluxGexSD8qcM
Message-ID: <CANUuoLqwB89Li04WjW++z1srP_67jGYJE4mkXXJqtnhrs2EZCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
To: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b10ccc364f84804ed32236a"
Subject: Re: [alto] Error codes in ALTO
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:18:32 -0000

Hi all,

After a while, IETF seems to catch up on errors. Here is a just-posted
document related with HTTP error codes:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-problem-05.txt

Richard


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins
<ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>wrote:

> Michael,
>
> > A reasonable design of an ALTO (client) implementation separates HTTP
> processing from the ALTO protocol engine. The former is mostly a generic
> HTTP instance (e.g., interfacing the well-known curl library), while the
> latter realized the ALTO message parsing etc. In normal operation, both
> "layers" are mostly independent.
> >
> > However, the RESTful design requires that ALTO error messages have to be
> handled both in the HTTP layer as well as in the ALTO layer. Specifically,
> the HTTP layer will have to decide based on the HTTP error code whether to
> pass a response to the ALTO layer for further ALTO error message
> processing, whether to do something else, or whether to consider the query
> as an entire failure.
>
> It could also use the presence of an app/alto-error (or whatever the media
> type is) message body & punt that to the ALTO layer.
>
> Without an ALTO specific error response in the message body HTTP doesn't
> give much room for providing rich error responses anyway, so the ALTO layer
> would be rather constrained with what it can do with just a HTTP status of
> 4xx or 5xx as there is unlikely to be a 1:1 mapping between ALTO errors and
> HTTP status codes.
>
> Ben
>
> > That distinction is much simpler if the implementor knows the HTTP error
> codes that require further processing not only by the HTTP logic, but also
> by the ALTO logic.
> >
> > Thus, for interoperability it seems indeed useful that the ALTO protocol
> spec exactly defines the HTTP error codes for any ALTO error type (i.e.,
> error code 400 in spec -14). I don't see a good reason to change that - it
> would make the HTTP logic in an ALTO implementation more complex and less
> interoperable, because the implementor of a client has to guess what a
> server might return.
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>



-- 
-- 
 =====================================
| Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu>   |
| Professor of Computer Science       |
| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |
 =====================================