Re: p1: generating "internal" errors

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 22 April 2013 04:20 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 D716E21F87B1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, 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 GdeE+83pNpJK for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87FAF21F874A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UU8Ef-0002F3-Do for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:20:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:20:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UU8Ef-0002F3-Do@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UU8Eb-0001vE-U7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:20:09 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UU8Ea-0007wr-Sg for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:20:09 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFA3F50A84; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:19:46 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130420071459.GJ26517@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:19:43 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E06582DE-0B18-41AD-9CDB-74E555B11C27@mnot.net>
References: <EA721AC2-5655-4EC6-851B-303EE22BB670@mnot.net> <20130420070354.GH26517@1wt.eu> <508475A0-4D1A-491B-AB1F-D9D1D9525D35@mnot.net> <20130420071459.GJ26517@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
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=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.376, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UU8Ea-0007wr-Sg 3ea053a0e4243d5af79450755e8e8d27
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: generating "internal" errors
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E06582DE-0B18-41AD-9CDB-74E555B11C27@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17460
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>

OK. I think I'll work on a separate draft to do this.

My main concern is developers that overload existing codes in an inappropriate ways, and the pseudo-standardisation of implementation-specific ones (as we're starting to see in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes>).


On 20/04/2013, at 5:14 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 05:06:08PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> On 20/04/2013, at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> 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.
> 
> OK. As was once discussed here, if we insist on no status code in the range
> 100-599 to be randomly picked by a developer, we're leaving enough room for
> libraries to do what they want without risk of interference.
> 
>>>> 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...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Willy
> 
> 

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