Re: p1: generating "internal" errors

[Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 02:07:52PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> p1 3.2.4 requires that a syntax violation in a received response be turned
> into a 502 (Bad Gateway) status code.
> 
> I'm not necessarily against it, but I think if we're going to take this
> approach to errors in received responses, it should be systematic, and we
> should recommend that others do it too. Currently, a lot of people are
> inventing new pseudo status codes to fill this role.
> 
> What do people think?

haproxy does exactly this right now (502) and I was not aware that people
invent their own code, this is pretty bad :-(

> This might not result in any changes in our specs beyond adjusting language
> in a few other places to do the same thing. I could see writing a separate
> spec for a header that described the type of error, though.

Good idea. Alternatively the reason code after the 502 could be modulated too.

Willy