Re: Generic semantics for the 400 status code

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 15 July 2011 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 13BC121F8640 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, 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 SFNQ0STobjKH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C2E21F85FE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Qhj1u-0007p0-8B for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:06:10 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Qhj1o-0007nk-G2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:06:04 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by aji.keio.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Qhj1k-0000HR-Vo for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:06:03 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p6FE5W7Y027807; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:05:32 +0200
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:05:32 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110715140532.GD27520@1wt.eu>
References: <E7DE53B9-C374-4C9B-81D2-1F35BFCC174F@mnot.net> <20110715135133.GC27520@1wt.eu> <9A48A81A-5F2B-4834-9423-1139DDFA1E6F@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9A48A81A-5F2B-4834-9423-1139DDFA1E6F@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1Qhj1k-0000HR-Vo bdfe5ca98cd3650eceb8be7825d6e0da
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Generic semantics for the 400 status code
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20110715140532.GD27520@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10950
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: <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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Qhj1u-0007p0-8B@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:06:10 +0000

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:55:45PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> So, do you support the proposal I made?
> 
> Note that this doesn't preclude minting a new status code if that's the right thing to do.

If you're talking about this :

> I think the 400 definition needs to be broadened, so that people don't invent their own status codes, or misuse existing ones.

Then yes I do support it. What I'm not in favor of is the use of the 503 that
was suggested on the openstack discussion -for this specific use- (and like
you, I too think that 403 was much closer to the need than 413).

Cheers,
Willy