Re: [vwrap] identifying a malformed LLSD request with HTTP binding
Mark Lentczner <markl@lindenlab.com> Thu, 01 April 2010 18:17 UTC
Return-Path: <markl@lindenlab.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id A068F3A6A10 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>;
Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.269,
BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OO8hlACalD6Y for
<vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com
[209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E6D3A69B3 for
<vwrap@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi10 with SMTP id 10so1286303pwi.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>;
Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.251.9 with SMTP id y9mr857693rvh.276.1270145905681;
Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nil.lindenlab.com ([38.99.52.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS
id g14sm1643202rvb.23.2010.04.01.11.18.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
From: Mark Lentczner <markl@lindenlab.com>
In-Reply-To: <201003291545.41626.bobby@sharedrealm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:18:20 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3E19A702-810C-4F48-B21F-4DC24C30EDD8@lindenlab.com>
References: <b325928b1003290903l4e060d2bxd4f7f2dbdf1ba455@mail.gmail.com>
<201003291545.41626.bobby@sharedrealm.com>
To: vwrap <vwrap@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Subject: Re: [vwrap] identifying a malformed LLSD request with HTTP binding
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group
<vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>,
<mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>,
<mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:17:58 -0000
On Mar 29, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Robert G. Jakabosky wrote: On Monday 29, Meadhbh Hamrick wrote: > so assuming there is consensus to reject malformed LLSD messages, > allow me to ask, how do we signal the fact that a server receiving a > HTTP request believes the message was malformed? > > reply with a 400 : Bad Request ? This looks right to me. It should probably be called out in Foundation. However, since we aren't likely to mandate any particular action in response to a 400, I'd suggest we don't define what the response body should contain. If an implementation wants to provide details, it can, but clients shouldn't expect that the response body with a 400 status will be LLSD, or even given. It might very well be text or HTML. - Mark Mark Lentczner Sr. Systems Architect Technology Integration Linden Lab markl@lindenlab.com Zero Linden zero.linden@secondlife.com
- Re: [vwrap] identifying a malformed LLSD request … Mark Lentczner