IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 20:58 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 30E6C21F8566 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:58:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 wYjI+WImsZFI for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A39E1F0CAF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyTrx-0004xR-26 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:57:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:57:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyTrx-0004xR-26@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1TyTrq-0004wh-Il for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:57:50 +0000
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1TyTrm-0007fl-LI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:57:50 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id dr12so6093007wgb.23 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:57:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zpLaGdmEWvQl19u/yZHdmi3riA1qPGNEYEPEEr7Otxs=; b=tsmdTJUVZYBldfBsjwuqmLvpXls/wqVl8j6ygmDldfB5dY74uX95pW/3aHQpdQ8y9+ eLqumK1oW71VuVq4flY+/slOkNdEBeJBodLl3CJKltEs0FyWaJmEaZJNG2e2CfM4vVNv nD5S7k8+kpPzZ8SGWagFsMi0v83QncNM2BDusq39RwqGv/LRoVFTAzzlBsyNq2py+ojg qcTmik4DR/AOGh8xLO9HcNQFPcJ4G+8wlhJvWukgZU6yG7/xPE8EER/+pWuGkMt40yl0 YHxK4UKM6xYwPxdykMosFL7iTRs26lTGVyaKbbFyEv90ils2xKH5aY78PjsPC6pfn8pm R/DQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.95.135 with SMTP id dk7mr5488999wib.29.1359061040035; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.136.66 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:57:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <51019F73.5060101@gmx.de>
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> <51019F73.5060101@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:57:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhUPUAGzPmrVyYnA8+kd=QjhNEb7uhzkkjTPZR5JdQNEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0444eec784f6f404d40f0e11"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.44; envelope-from=hallam@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f44.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.210, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TyTrm-0007fl-LI 697800dff5df31010d0cdec5dfb629a8
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/CAMm+LwhUPUAGzPmrVyYnA8+kd=QjhNEb7uhzkkjTPZR5JdQNEg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16177
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>

HTTP is a Session/Presentation Protocol

TCP is a Transport Protocol.


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2013-01-24 21:34, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com
>> <mailto:nico@cryptonector.com>**> wrote:
>>
>>     On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Julian Reschke
>>     <julian.reschke@gmx.de <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>**> wrote:
>>      > On 2013-01-24 04:18, Grahame Grieve wrote:
>>      >> What would be right http status code to use? It's a client
>>     error, right?
>>      >> The nearest appropriate status code would be 422, but I'm not sure
>>      >> whether that can be used outside webdav. Either way, there's a
>> bunch
>>      >
>>      > It can.
>>      >
>>      > [...]
>>      >
>>      > Augmenting error handling for web services is an interesting
>>     topic. See
>>      > prior proposals about Link relations, or a JSON typed response
>>     body format
>>      > for 4xx/5xx.
>>
>>     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.
>>
>
> In that case you are (ab)using HTTP as transport protocol.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email