New HTTP Codes

#1

Post by alcuadrado » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 7:43 AM UTC

New HTTP Codes
tools.ietf.org

Re: New HTTP Codes

#2

Post by rwolf » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 7:59 AM UTC

Today I learned about If-Match. 428 Precondition Required looks great!

Re: New HTTP Codes

#3

Post by pavpanchekha » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 8:06 AM UTC

These all seem immediately practical status codes that add semantics I've been wanting. Great! In particular I am happy about the 429 Too Many Requests header, as every time I've done rate throttling I've had to quibble over what code to actually send back.

Re: New HTTP Codes

#4

Post by antimora » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 8:07 AM UTC

I wish HTTP requests submitted time zone information.

Re: New HTTP Codes

#5

Post by ck2 » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 8:09 AM UTC

Summary:

  428 Precondition Required
  429 Too Many Requests
  431 Request Header Fields Too Large 
  511 Network Authentication Required

I've been using 414 Request-URI Too Long for 431 and 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable for 429

Re: New HTTP Codes

#6

Post by Robin_Message » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 8:14 AM UTC

511 seems a little pointless -- browsers can treat it differently, but if the intermediate gateway intends to be malicious, then it won't return 511 anyway. The only useful thing I can see is avoiding accidents/attacks on the gateway compromising its clients.

Re: New HTTP Codes

#7

Post by stygianguest » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 8:25 AM UTC

A bit offtopic, but does anybody know what typesetting system was used to produce this document? It looks like troff manpages. Is that what is used for RFC documents as well? I love the oldschool look of it.

Re: New HTTP Codes

#8

Post by mooism2 » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 8:30 AM UTC

antimora wrote: post #4

I wish HTTP requests submitted time zone information.

Just the current offset from UTC, or including the whole daylight savings malarkey?

Re: New HTTP Codes

#9

Post by bostonvaulter2 » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 8:40 AM UTC

Robin_Message wrote: post #6

511 seems a little pointless -- browsers can treat it differently, but if the intermediate gateway intends to be malicious, then it won't return 511 anyway. The only useful thing I can see is avoiding accidents/attacks on the gateway compromising its clients.

I don't think 511 is so much for security, I see it as being more focused on usability. For example if you have thick client program that talks to a backend server (perhaps for updates) and it receives a 511 response it can then tell the user that they need to login to the proxy (or just pop up a web browser for them).

Re: New HTTP Codes

#10

Post by simondlr » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 8:40 AM UTC

pavpanchekha wrote: post #3

These all seem immediately practical status codes that add semantics I've been wanting. Great! In particular I am happy about the 429 Too Many Requests header, as every time I've done rate throttling I've had to quibble over what code to actually send back.

Yeah. This is great. Will work great with APIs.