Subject: Fwd: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03.txt> (Additional HTTP Status Codes) to Proposed Standard

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:35:17 -0700

FYI.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03.txt>
(Additional HTTP Status Codes) to Proposed Standard
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:49:51 -0800
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Additional HTTP Status Codes'
  <draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-01-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document specifies additional HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
   status codes for a variety of common situations.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)

   Distribution of this document is unlimited.  Although this is not a
   work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to
   the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) mailing list at
   [email-masked] [1], which may be joined by sending a message
   with subject "subscribe" to [email-masked] [2].

   Discussions of the HTTPbis Working Group are archived at
   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-http-new-status/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-http-new-status/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: Riccardo Bernardini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:57:40 +0100

Hi all,
just a couple of doubts about this draft

1) In Section 3 (about code 428 Precondition Required) it is said that
"Responses
using this status code SHOULD explain how to resubmit the request
successfully." The example shown in Section 3 shows an error message
embedded in an HTML document.  What make me a bit uneasy is that a
precondition was required, but not inserted, usually it is not a fault of
the user, but of the client software. I am not sure that any explanation
associated with the error could be useful to the user...

2) Are really section 7.1 and 7.2 security related or would it better to
merge them with Section 3 and 4? Just a doubt...

Riccardo

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:23:55 +0100

On 2011-12-16 17:57, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> "Responses using this status code SHOULD explain how to resubmit the
> request successfully." The example shown in Section 3 shows an error
> message embedded in an HTML document.  What make me a bit uneasy is that
> a precondition was required, but not inserted, usually it is not a fault
> of the user, but of the client software. I am not sure that any
> explanation associated with the error could be useful to the user...

...not to the user, but potentially to somebody debugging the code.