IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Server Push Error Codes

Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me> Wed, 24 August 2016 09:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4ABA12D15E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 02:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=emilyshepherd.me
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 oJYmG_9FlxMJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 02:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D9312D567 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 02:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bcU7e-0003ox-CR for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:05:22 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:05:22 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bcU7e-0003ox-CR@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <emily@emilyshepherd.me>) id 1bcU7V-0003l0-Ul for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:05:13 +0000
Received: from lucy.sweeb.net ([139.162.207.199]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <emily@emilyshepherd.me>) id 1bcU7O-0002Th-NL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:05:13 +0000
Received: by lucy.sweeb.net (Postfix, from userid 115) id E89AA21EC8; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:04:43 +0100 (BST)
Authentication-Results: lucy.sweeb.net; dkim=pass reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key" header.d=emilyshepherd.me header.i=@emilyshepherd.me header.b=xDannTLr; dkim-adsp=pass; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from emily-tablet (host86-163-89-41.range86-163.btcentralplus.com [86.163.89.41]) by lucy.sweeb.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA59321EA8; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:04:42 +0100 (BST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=emilyshepherd.me; s=mail; t=1472029483; bh=BGWd7FIZUR7GYFqzTSwXJkjWM9YsmkOzu4fw9ohVkbc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=xDannTLrISZd/aFS6rXFedCDKV7fedpMa/CYBquCk+RKbT7j6GG/JcVPzODBizSHL knzMpanS6q8HMygaguEiEwGUV5vN/Bfzjq8/9TNCGX9gDUhTSKN0FrirXyS5G3FfHi pP8es6sL3TZlqREilTgFLq68eTl6sGxe0xEK0TkA=
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:04:20 +0100
From: Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160824090420.zuo4tlj3crkyxwjk@emily-tablet>
References: <077CD10C-E189-47B0-A221-3EA270B2B55D@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVE8OBy_oxbw86ZNf0AHnywmTPAgEFNm8w9sSu-Q0FXKw@mail.gmail.com> <2099D099-70BC-43E2-A3BD-2891C87FE74A@mnot.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3z63r5pcphkiyhzj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2099D099-70BC-43E2-A3BD-2891C87FE74A@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=139.162.207.199; envelope-from=emily@emilyshepherd.me; helo=lucy.sweeb.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bcU7O-0002Th-NL 9c654e0626f88b994aa6fc8a85262a3c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Server Push Error Codes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20160824090420.zuo4tlj3crkyxwjk@emily-tablet>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32347
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:39:53PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> # PUSH_CONTENT_ENCODING_NOT_SUPPORTED
>>
>> This seems like it could be overly specific.  PUSH_NOT_ACCEPTABLE
>> might be used to cover Accept as well as Accept-Encoding.  Unless you
>> want both.
>
>Possibly. I don't disagree with anything you say, it's just that error codes are pretty cheap, and the places that these are going to be useful are dark corner cases that are really atypical.

I agree. I can't see a reason being specific in error conditions could 
ever be a bad thing.

Emily

-- 
Emily Shepherd
Computer Science Graduate, MEng (Hons)
W: https://emilyshepherd.me/
M: +44(0)7575 721 231

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email