Live data from Hacker News

New HTTP Codes

tools.ietf.org

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: New HTTP Codes

#41
post #39
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

Too continue. It's "you're sending ttoo many requests" not "server is overloaded/getting too many requests". Hence it's a client error 4xx, and not server 5xx.

Re: New HTTP Codes

#42
post #40

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 an…

Google is trying: http://www.chromium.org/spdy

Re: New HTTP Codes

#43
Isn't this something that the http server handles? I am not in web development except for basic php and cgi scripts. Are people actually writing web app code to dictate what http code comes back on each request?

Re: New HTTP Codes

#44

Isn't this something that the http server handles? I am not in web development except for basic php and cgi scripts. Are people actually writing web app code to dictate what http code comes back on each request?

Yes, sometimes the correct response is not an HTML page, but an error code (e.g. 301 Moved Permanently, 302 Found are used to implement redirects).

Re: New HTTP Codes

#46
428 seems interesting as a way to serialize objects and store them client-side, but assure the version stays consistent with the server. Or am I overthinking it?

Re: New HTTP Codes

#47
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Too continue. It's "you're sending ttoo many requests" not "server is overloaded/getting too many requests". Hence it's a client error 4xx, and not server 5xx.

Put that way, it makes sense. Thanks.

Re: New HTTP Codes

#49

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.

It has nothing to do with security, but it's not pointless. It tells the client that this response did not come from the server it attempted to contact. This is especially useful for non-browser clients that will otherwise simply choke on the 302 redirect normally used for this purpose, but it could also be useful for browsers to present a better UI for signing on to the internet. My only concern is that 511 could be…

> My only concern is that 511 could be seen as legitimizing the practice of putting silly click-through terms-of-service roadblocks on free wi-fi (making it impossible for devices to connect without a human operating a web browser), but since people are doing it anyway we might as well support it properly.

Filter on User-Agent to only show terms to browser. If non-human agent spoofs browser signature, it’s their own fault.

Re: New HTTP Codes

#50
One quibble. Perhaps I don't quite get the philosophy behind these, but wouldn't it be more useful to have a uniform structure to the responses. E.g., how useful is it to the average user to get a human-readable response for 428 when it's likely to be consumed by an app (i.e., JS) which would have to parse the suggested

tag?

Post reply on HN