New HTTP Codes • Hacker News Board

Re: New HTTP Codes

#31

Post by riprova » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 12:34 PM UTC

dochtman wrote: post #28

What happened to 430?

dunno but 418 is still my fave :-)

Re: New HTTP Codes

#32

Post by billpg » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:01 PM UTC

Shouldn't 429 (Too many requests) be a 5xx code?

Re: New HTTP Codes

#33

Post by bromagosa » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:05 PM UTC

OMG really? Do we want to make HTTP even bigger? Don't we want to dump it for good and look for something more suitable to what the modern web needs instead?

Re: New HTTP Codes

#34

Post by moserware » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:05 PM UTC

billpg wrote: post #32

Shouldn't 429 (Too many requests) be a 5xx code?

I think it's fine. 4xx is a way of saying the client did something wrong that it can potentially fix (i.e. slow down requests). 5xx is more opaque meaning there is nothing the client can do to fix the problem.

Re: New HTTP Codes

#35

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:21 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: New HTTP Codes

#36

Post by jsn » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:25 PM UTC

ra wrote: post #25

ck2 wrote: post #5

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

Apart from the obvious semantics, what's the difference between 428 and 412? (412 - precondition failed)

AFAICS, 412 is only meaningful when the request did specify a precondition (which failed), while 428 means that the request didn't specify some precondition (which was required by server).

Re: New HTTP Codes

#37

Post by gujk » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:34 PM UTC

bromagosa wrote: post #33

OMG really? Do we want to make HTTP even bigger? Don't we want to dump it for good and look for something more suitable to what the modern web needs instead?

What do you propose we do in he meantime, before all the existing servers and clients are migrated?

Re: New HTTP Codes

#38

Post by afdssfda » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:43 PM UTC

511: 'Unknown clients then have all traffic blocked, except for that on TCP port 80, which is sent to a HTTP server (the "login server") dedicated to "logging in" unknown clients, and of course traffic to the login server itself.'

Ugh. Couldn't this be more generic?

Re: New HTTP Codes

#39

Post by snorkel » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:54 PM UTC

billpg wrote: post #32

Shouldn't 429 (Too many requests) be a 5xx code?

In general 4xx errors are problems with the request, and 5xx errors are operational issues with the server/network

Re: New HTTP Codes

#40

Post by Hoff » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:55 PM UTC

bromagosa wrote: post #33

OMG really? Do we want to make HTTP even bigger? Don't we want to dump it for good and look for something more suitable to what the modern web needs instead?

Rewriting a large and complex enterprise-class application is tough enough, and a task that can variously (and expensively) fail.

Rewriting the whole of the World Wide Web?

Your replacement had better have a solid compatibility and migration path with "legacy" HTTP, and provide a substantial improvement over what HTTP and the existing tools provides, and clients and a migration path for a majority of the platforms and tools and browsers and embedded browsers and embedded web servers in use, and the budget and the time to make the replacement push.