Re: p2: scope for status codes

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 23 April 2013 22:21 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 B0A1B21F9050 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, 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 c5HosWxvnwuJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B6321F8C08 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUlaK-0003Rt-QI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUlaK-0003Rt-QI@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 1UUlaG-0003QK-CX for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:08 +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 1UUlaF-0007mY-Cc for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:08 +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 57567509B6; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:20:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <51768987.5090001@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:20:41 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AE9F321A-915A-4416-ADD9-14F003B96524@mnot.net>
References: <9EB331FC-D296-4776-B2B9-D1970B1E586A@mnot.net> <51734FCD.80202@treenet.co.nz> <92F2BEB5-8CE0-49E3-8027-AB3B398642F1@mnot.net> <51768987.5090001@treenet.co.nz>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
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=-2.370, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UUlaF-0007mY-Cc 6dcaf905d25fb1ddcceaacf3b86e9029
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: scope for status codes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/AE9F321A-915A-4416-ADD9-14F003B96524@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17513
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 23/04/2013, at 11:15 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 23/04/2013 3:08 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 21/04/2013, at 12:32 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> Er, that *really* isn't what 409 means; it's a conflict in the state of the *resource*.
> 
> I think it fits. Resource O is being fetched. The information available indicates that it is *only* available on server A, B , C. Yet the client is fetching a copy from server Z.
> "These droids^W^Wresource is not the one you seek."

You're confusing a problem with the message (it has conflicting semantics) and the 409 status code's use case -- again, it's about the resource. See <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#status.409>.


>> 400 and a body / header is probably best for that.
>> 
>> 
>>>>   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.
>> OK, I'll buy that.
>> 
>> 
>>>> 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.
>> OK, it sounds like the outcome here is to note that 403 can be generated by intermediaries, at the most. Let's just make it an editorial suggestion.
> 
> ... and what you had in mind for 406 status.


Yes.

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