* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Ticket #255 (closed design: fixed)

Opened 4 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

Clarify status code for rate limiting

Reported by: mnot@pobox.com Owned by: mnot@pobox.com
Priority: normal Milestone: 18
Component: p2-semantics Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: status-code rate-limit Cc:
Origin: http://www.w3.org/mid/827182B5-E3B3-4762-AF6A-D34B8EB4B72E@la-grange.net

Description

I have seen a few times blog post (example [1]) over API Rate Limits and HTTP response code. People designing APIs have difficulties it seems to find the appropriate HTTP response code. That led me a few weeks ago to look at what was done at a few services (not a complete survey, just curiosity)

There is no common practice around that. Should the HTTP specification have a specific code for this, or is there already everything appropriate?

Attachments

255.diff (1.7 KB) - added by julian.reschke@gmx.de 3 years ago.
Proposed patch backing out [1310]

Change History

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Owner set to mnot@pobox.com

Proposal: change first sentence of 503 definition to:

The server is currently unable or unwilling to handle the request due to a temporary overloading, maintenance of the server, or rate limiting of the client.

comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 14

Editorial input from Adrien de Croy:

Why not just say something like

"The server is currently unable or unwilling to handle the request."

Then give some explanatory text such as:

"The server may be prepared to handle the request if resubmitted after a delay. This is intended to be used for conditions including:

  • temporary overloading
  • server maintenance
  • client rate limiting
  • any case where service is temporarily unavailable.

the point I'm trying to make is if we define too narrowly the reasons why the code should be used, it will just invite issues later on when people search for an appropriate code to use for their new application which we didn't think about. where really the code just means "not right now".

comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 14 to 15

comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [1310]:

slightly expand the scope of 503 to include scenarios like rate limiting (see #255)

comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Status changed from new to closed
  • Resolution set to incorporated

comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution incorporated deleted

comment:7 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from reopened to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

comment:8 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution fixed deleted

reopening, as I said I was going to.

comment:9 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 15 to unassigned

comment:10 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Priority changed from normal to later

Waiting to see the disposition of http-new-status; if it gets taken up by APPSAWG, we'll need to back this out.

comment:11 Changed 3 years ago by stpeter@stpeter.im

http-new-status has been taken up as an AD-sponsored draft. Does that have implications for this ticket?

Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

Proposed patch backing out [1310]

comment:12 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Priority changed from later to normal
  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 18

comment:13 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [1486]:

take out new text for 503 covering rate limiting [1310] (because of status 429 defined in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03#section-4) (see #255)

comment:14 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Status changed from reopened to closed
  • Resolution set to incorporated

comment:15 Changed 2 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution incorporated deleted

comment:16 Changed 2 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from reopened to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.