Re: [apps-discuss] Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Wed, 07 December 2011 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C43F11E80A0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:30:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.268
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BXSwzmIBoIQq for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5143911E809F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Dec 2011 02:30:33 -0000
Received: from cbs1005165.staff.ad.curtin.edu.au (EHLO cbs1005165) [134.7.114.19] by mail.gmx.net (mp072) with SMTP; 07 Dec 2011 03:30:33 +0100
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19JwDVq/KxJACAD+6Ke/94AKVjgZwj0bNX9cX12W9 Lp+Yd5KA2F10aw
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
References: <000e01ccb3c1$4c347cb0$e49d7610$@lanthaler@gmx.net> <003f01ccb3da$6779f4f0$366dded0$@lanthaler@gmx.net> <83DF3CE2-C111-41CA-BA98-BC5BD50BD012@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <83DF3CE2-C111-41CA-BA98-BC5BD50BD012@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:30:26 +0800
Message-ID: <006701ccb488$32e6cc00$98b46400$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acy0hKX2pKnhHqqhQXibWN4+QxVYqAAAFzKw
Content-Language: en-us
x-ms-exchange-organization-originalclientipaddress: 10.9.122.7
x-ms-exchange-organization-originalserveripaddress: 10.9.123.35
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 02:30:37 -0000

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> For POST, this response is no different than 200 -- the client has no
> idea what semantics are provided by the service and thus cannot
> differentiate partial from complete success without the service
> telling the client what to do next (i.e., exactly what 200 does).

That's true. 


Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Why is it necessary to surface this information in the status code?

I just wanted to solely rely on the 200 code when the request was
*completely* fulfilled and have a way to signal the client to also look at
the body when it was *partially fulfilled*. But having a content length of 0
in the first case would basically do the same, right?


> E.g., will intermediaries or automated software that's not specific to
> the application at hand be able to use it?

Hmm... No. You are right, indeed it has no advantage of creating a specific
response code for that as it won't tell you more about the result than a
200.

Thank you very much for the feedback


Regards


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler