[PATCH] Use RFC 9110 descriptions for status 413 and 414

[Michiel Beijen]

Hi,

On 14-04-2024 03:00, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
> Note that 413 was "Payload Too Large" since RFC 7231, which was
> then changed into "Content Too Large" in RFC 9110.  Both reason
> phrases, unfortunately, look worse than "Request Entity Too Large"
> as introduced in RFC 2068, as they require additional information
> to understand if the request or the response content is the source
> of the problem.
>
> And 414 was "Request-URI Too Long" since introduction in RFC 2068,
> and changed to "URI Too Long" in RFC 7231 (and not changed in RFC
> 9110).  That is, "Too Large" part is not consistent with any RFCs,
> it should be "Too Long".  The NGX_HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LARGE name
> dates back to 12:055ed05235ae (nginx-0.0.1-2002-09-13-18:47:42
> import), and likely was borrowed from Apache, which also uses
> similar name (HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LARGE, see
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/include/httpd.h).
>
> Overall, I tend to think that it would be wrong to change defines,
> even if providing compatibility shims.  OTOH, we can consider
> updating text representations, similarly to how it is already the
> case for 302 (which is NGX_HTTP_MOVED_TEMPORARILY, but "302
> Found").  (But I would rather refrain from changing 413 due to
> the above reason.)

Thanks for the status code archeology. I was already wondering about the 
differences between the RFCs and nginx descriptions.

I've created a new patch where only the content generated by NGINX is 
modified, and not the defines.

--

Michiel