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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2011-12-16 17:57, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
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...

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

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

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]