Return-Path: 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 71F2021F8762 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:55:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PR+V5v4mIPYW for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2842221F8761 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qhhtu-0001Hw-IA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:53:50 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qhhtk-0001Fz-8X for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:53:40 +0000 Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qhhtf-0002ix-Sv for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:53:40 +0000 Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.98.127]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16DAA509DB for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:53:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Nottingham Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:53:09 +1000 Message-Id: To: HTTP Working Group Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Qhhtf-0002ix-Sv 284de746aa67c44db73ddfc0bd11636f X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: Generic semantics for the 400 status code Archived-At: Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10945 X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:53:50 +0000 When people have error states that don't cleanly fit into an existing = status code, they're often encouraged to use 400 or 500, depending on = whether the client or server were at fault, as they're the most = "generic" status codes. 500's definition fits this: > 8.5.1. 500 Internal Server Error >=20 > The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it > from fulfilling the request. However, 400 is much more specific: > 8.4.1. 400 Bad Request >=20 > The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed > syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without > modifications. I think the 400 definition needs to be broadened, so that people don't = invent their own status codes, or misuse existing ones. E.g., """ The server can or will not process the request, due to a client error = (e.g., malformed syntax). """ Additionally, I think we should move the caution against retrying the = request to the general 4xx section (8.4)*. Background: = http://docs.openstack.org/cactus/openstack-compute/developer/openstack-com= pute-api-1.1/content/Synchronous_Faults-d1e1729.html#comment-213643851 Thoughts? Cheers, * Why is the "If the client is sending data..." section in p2 8.4? Seems = like this belongs in p1... -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/