IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 21:24 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 90C6211E8099 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:24:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.294
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.683, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 oHgr-d+4RpWt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:24:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D81021F8200 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:24:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyUGE-00026E-CD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:23:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:23:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyUGE-00026E-CD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyUG8-00024z-Q2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:22:56 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdcahe.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.74] helo=homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyUG6-00008O-Tw for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:22:56 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B75594072 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:22:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=iGvZBIAgLrwsMkIxJW5K VgIsq5Q=; b=Ok+l7pyYmZXUyYjO/X1rCaLlcVBcVPrQMCD/eb6ZpIAth5YI4jEL CKE7pQo5VYtBLHllPDp0Sw5p5yYniFOIixDrl+F41vG2xSZdpouwFwTqey/boE6g 3eTWxHXiQ6jPIhJzPugr/QFcn43qyGc/xRoi9IUJRUx6qs2JVz8BA3g=
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB5BF5940B8 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id o1so865786wic.11 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:22:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.77.13 with SMTP id o13mr5453144wjw.58.1359062544980; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.39.133 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:22:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwi9QM4eaYBePCDxhOoLw+W2jrabhFAFHWq6FhwF=acVLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwgTSw05QLUspAbAyRSWfd8j27fhwPiDSF_TaD8LevftBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iu-bH_cEEVNq0CxcHZELjAFZ0Vb6d8cN5y_qbmu6xCKFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG47hGa+Hp4LmepYOsCXM9p-L-XrP3a6o1S3RorEYiJK8SEmFA@mail.gmail.com> <51015378.5080106@gmx.de> <CAK3OfOgESpx+a2-767ejoksMgXsTjFgQpr4r9fvFjr3O1T33LA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi9QM4eaYBePCDxhOoLw+W2jrabhFAFHWq6FhwF=acVLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:22:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjWAJeBYCEftNES6o==7bUUUEpHZEkfJKNJRPOvvG62KA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.74; envelope-from=nico@cryptonector.com; helo=homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.244, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TyUG6-00008O-Tw 68e3e86638038654f21adb7d242e18fb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAK3OfOjWAJeBYCEftNES6o==7bUUUEpHZEkfJKNJRPOvvG62KA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16178
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 Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
> wrote:
>> I've seen APIs that handle errors in JSON-encoded response bodies,
>> including one that always returns success in HTTP but errors in the
>> response body, which is kinda weird, but if none of the HTTP status
>> codes make sense...  (that was the author's defense).
>
> It makes perfect sense from a layering perspective.
>
> In an RPC call I probably want HTTP errors to be strictly limited to
> reporting network failures. 'entry not found' is a completely different
> result from 'machine is down'
>
> entry not found is arguably a successful transaction that returned an empty
> list of results.

That was the author's defense.

I understand Julian's objection too, but it made no difference.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email