Re: HTTP status code for "response too large"

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 18 April 2012 15:51 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 1712221F85F2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.467, 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 gLi-E5MIW+Q2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8375C21F85C0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SKX8i-0008MO-6J for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:49:52 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1SKX8a-0008Jo-8K for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:49:44 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by maggie.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1SKX8V-0003L4-Gu for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:49:42 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 15:49:13 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 18 Apr 2012 17:49:13 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19wFtE2bCNw6tok2mD5DtJlkQeRZe4+gQ2AkrSWqS uXPVSRmyPBVbiq
Message-ID: <4F8EE250.80206@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:48:32 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Andreas Maier <MAIERA@de.ibm.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Thomas Narten <tnarten@us.ibm.com>
References: <OFD186EDCA.AF2D3EBA-ON852579E4.003EB3DE-852579E4.00403734@de.ibm.com> <4F8EAC1A.5000707@gmx.de> <214DE30B03E5CC7C7FE4CF6C@caldav.corp.apple.com> <4F8ED467.6020809@gmx.de> <25172B451C65D28F02CDAB63@caldav.corp.apple.com> <2033EB77-610A-447F-BEE6-C0B9CF53A2CF@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <2033EB77-610A-447F-BEE6-C0B9CF53A2CF@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.23; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1SKX8V-0003L4-Gu 191208279979d774611ffe9c570af4e3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP status code for "response too large"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4F8EE250.80206@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13458
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SKX8i-0008MO-6J@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:49:52 +0000

On 2012-04-18 17:32, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
> This is a good illustration of How Not To Do It. 507 should have been more generic, focusing on the interface rather than the implementation (as Roy constantly reminds us).
> ...

I think the problem is the reverse one; the definition of 507 isn't 
precise enough, leading people to think it's about responses as well 
(and yes, me too).

Best regards, Julian