Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03.txt (Additional HTTP Status Codes) to Proposed Standard
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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03.txt (Additional HTTP Status Codes) to Proposed Standard
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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
