Closed duglin closed 6 years ago
Hey duglin!
Thanks for submitting this pull request! I'm here to inform the recipients of the pull request that you and the commit authors have already signed the CLA.
While we could technically merge the two 4xx lines, I think its important to call out the 408 by itself so we can be clear that this is a "client side" timeout and not a "server side" one - which are very very different w.r.t. orphan mitigation
TBH I would prefer to remove the special mention of 408
completely, as it's not actually special as we discussed in #449. All 4xx
are client side errors, and there are no exceptions in regards to orphan mitigation.
We also don't mention the 504 Gateway Timeout
explicitly anywhere apart from 5xx
, for example.
@nilebox my original version of the PR did merge them and within 5 minutes I got a ping about it because the distinction between client-side vs server-side timeout wasn't clear - so I added it back in, just for the sake of clarity. We don't need to call-out 504
because it results in orphan mitigation which is what most people would expect from a "timeout".
@duglin I see your concern, but the distinction between client-side and server-side errors is an HTTP standard's problem, OSB doesn't bring anything additional there. Furthemore, HTTP standard makes the distinction very clear - 4xx
are client-side errors, and 5xx
are server-side errors. If we needed to alter this distinction (which OSB spec currently does), it would obviously require a special wording in the OSB spec. But since we don't (anymore), I don't see the value of keeping 408
separate from 4xx
.
reviews needed
2 more reviews needed @fmui @vaikas-google @mattmcneeney
/cc @nilebox
Closes #449
Signed-off-by: Doug Davis dug@us.ibm.com