Re: p2: scope for status codes

[Amos Jeffries <[e-mail]>]

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