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

"Markus Lanthaler" <> Wed, 07 December 2011 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C43F11E80A0 for <>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:30:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.268
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BXSwzmIBoIQq for <>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 5143911E809F for <>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Dec 2011 02:30:33 -0000
Received: from (EHLO cbs1005165) [] by (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" <>
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <>
References: <000e01ccb3c1$4c347cb0$e49d7610$> <003f01ccb3da$6779f4f0$366dded0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:30:26 +0800
Message-ID: <006701ccb488$32e6cc00$98b46400$>
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-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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

Thank you very much for the feedback


Markus Lanthaler