[Standards] draft-nottingham-http-problem

Winfried Tilanus winfried at tilanus.com
Wed Dec 11 13:22:33 UTC 2013


On 09-12-13 12:29, Dave Cridland wrote:

Hi,

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-05

Interesting.

> this morning, and I wondered about its applicability to BOSH for fatal
> errors at the XEP-0124 level.
>
> I don't think XEP-0124 really goes into much detail about error
> responses - I confess to not having looked at the new version, though.

When talking about BOSH, I think it is good to distinguish the HTTP
request level, the BOSH-session level and the XMPP stream level. (The
BOSH session glues the HTTP requests to a XMPP stream, but you know that
already).

XEP-0124 moved away from error responses on HTTP-level. When the client
encounters an error on HTTP level, it can respond to it how it wants to
it, but usually it means a misconfiguration and usually it is fatal. On
the level of the BOSH session, there are BOSH error conditions and how
to respond to them defined. The XMPP stream has of course its own stream
errors and its own mechanisms to handle those.

I hope I understand this draft and your remark correctly, but I see only
very limited use of this draft in BOSH:

On the HTTP level this draft may provide some useful information, mainly
for debugging purposes. But I don't think it would be in the scope of
XEP-0124 to deal with error conditions on the HTTP level. Of course
connection managers, proxies etc, are free to respond in case of an
errors on the HTTP-level as they seem fit.

On the BOSH level the idea of machine readable error conditions may
provide additional information about errors, but I don't know how useful
it is: I never needed it. And IMHO it is best to respond to errors on
the BOSH level on the BOSH level, not on the HTTP level. So if we feel
the need to, we may incorporate it in XEP-0124 for handling BOSH errors.

Winfried



More information about the Standards mailing list