Re: p2: scope for status codes

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Sun, 21 April 2013 02:34 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 4258621F855A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A4AODTmPoOYh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B80021F8551 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTk5a-0007N2-40 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:33:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:33:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTk5a-0007N2-40@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1UTk5W-0007MN-Vf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:33:11 +0000
Received: from ip-58-28-153-233.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz ([58.28.153.233] helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1UTk5W-0004sh-8T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:33:10 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.7] (103-9-43-128.flip.co.nz [103.9.43.128]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98711E6EC1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:32:46 +1200 (NZST)
Message-ID: <51734FCD.80202@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:32:45 +1200
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <9EB331FC-D296-4776-B2B9-D1970B1E586A@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <9EB331FC-D296-4776-B2B9-D1970B1E586A@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=58.28.153.233; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.710, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UTk5W-0004sh-8T b9474b195aaaf5562893f4b1e9c467ae
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: scope for status codes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51734FCD.80202@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17443
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 20/04/2013 9:14 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Several status codes are defined in terms of indicating the server's intent, without specifying what kind of server it is.
>
> I believe there are several that we can make more specific without too much controversy. Specifically,
>
>    406 Not Acceptable
>    409 Conflict

Note: Squid uses 409 Conflict to signal CVE-2009-0801 validation 
mismatch between DNS, TCP and HTTP state as reason for messages being 
rejected. It is a client-end error and more expressive of the semantic 
problem than 400 or 500.

>    500 Internal Service Error

Disagree strongly with 500. It is intentionally the generic "server" 
error to be sent by any server for edge case internal errors.

>
> can, I think, all be specified as being from the origin server.
>
> And, if we are still OK with 403 Forbidden being generated by both origins and intermediaries, it may be helpful to explicitly state that.

Agreed on that.


Amos