> In Targets case, it should have probably returned 400 Bad Client, since what the client tried to access wasn’t a REST endpoint. The trouble with that approac

> In Targets case, it should have probably returned 400 Bad Client, since what the client tried to access wasn’t a REST endpoint. The trouble with that approach is it puts the onus on the Server to response accordingly. In the case of a Client misconfiguration you might point the Client at a valid HTTP Server, just not the one you anticipated. I agree with nerdponx that they were miss using 404. Instead they should have used a different HTTP Response Status Code to indicate something was removed from the system. Perhaps 410 Gone or 417 Expectation Failed.