Re: p1: generating "internal" errors

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 20/04/2013, at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 :-(

I'm thinking more about client libraries than intermediaries.


>> 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.


That is discarded in some circumstances, and in any case we shouldn't encourage people to start using it for semantically significant things...

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/