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 4949121F8569 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:56:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.672 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.927, 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 KI9v6mweWoNz for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A2D21F8565 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QiFdd-0004pa-Gv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:55:17 +0000 Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QiFdR-0004oZ-TE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:55:05 +0000 Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QiFdQ-0003jL-9a for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:55:05 +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 3D75350A5D for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 20:54:42 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:54:39 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: HTTP Working Group 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: maggie.w3.org 1QiFdQ-0003jL-9a 541b8900d1024d643c5b5876e7d15d44 X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) Archived-At: Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10952 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: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:55:17 +0000 On 15/07/2011, at 10:53 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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. >=20 > 500's definition fits this: >=20 >> 8.5.1. 500 Internal Server Error >>=20 >> The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it >> from fulfilling the request. >=20 > However, 400 is much more specific: >=20 >> 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. >=20 > I think the 400 definition needs to be broadened, so that people don't = invent their own status codes, or misuse existing ones. >=20 > E.g., >=20 > """ > The server can or will not process the request, due to a client error = (e.g., malformed syntax). > """ This was logged as = . > * Why is the "If the client is sending data..." section in p2 8.4? = Seems like this belongs in p1... This is now #302 = (editorial) -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/