IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Thu, 25 July 2013 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335C321F9B14 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zNwCczPS3B7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FFC21F9AFE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2HUh-0008Qn-MA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:05:55 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:05:55 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2HUh-0008Qn-MA@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>) id 1V2HUY-0008PH-J3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:05:46 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>) id 1V2HUV-0003Rm-0B for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:05:46 +0000
Received: from Vostro3500 ([79.48.108.27]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LZz01-1UNgTh2kCT-00lkPu for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:05:16 +0200
From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <20130725052453.GC31954@1wt.eu> <51F0C34B.1030709@gmx.de> <4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <51F0E0C5.90606@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <51F0E0C5.90606@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:05:11 +0200
Message-ID: <007301ce8916$126e08d0$374a1a70$@lanthaler>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac6JEJv/xmf1XsJFSN6UNyrw4Iwa8QABI57w
Content-Language: de
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:GI0NK9bTGFy1SS/h9UJ2Cvn+hfupGzvbV5VyfHmM1GitNVFJS8J /zCE0sLSzg5WXN2API0Ez3mHRYcHHAb/3zWrss5yxYdR0iA8FLpZTOjNSerFiEC8u44jwXe aKLOH02VyzVJJ6MrHUNL3puN1ycmeJNNeTionV+B6xzvUZFr0QQKvKprSrqBDbPh4XWtdSa FqR9YxrAdDYQVU6woq99A==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.15; envelope-from=markus.lanthaler@gmx.net; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2HUV-0003Rm-0B 1a9cc9f88161e71be063023e73687dc0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/007301ce8916$126e08d0$374a1a70$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18916
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>> Shouldn't we copy them there, or at least add a reference to
> >>> RFC6585 so that implementers know that these codes exist ?
[...]
> >>
> >> No, that would send the wrong message.
> >>
> >> The list in the spec is not exhaustive; there's an IANA registry for a
> >> reason.
> >
> > But is there any good reason not to consolidate the codes that were
> > known at the time?
> 
> As I said: it sends the wrong message. What's relevant is the IANA
> registry.
> 
> If you have a specific proposal to make *that* clearer in the spec,
> please go ahead.

What about just changing

   Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include
   extension status codes defined in other specifications.

in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-23#section-6.1 to something like

   Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include
   extension status codes defined in other specifications. IANA
   maintains a registry of all standardized status codes at [???]

Unfortunately, AFAIK, the URLs of those registries are not stable so I'm not sure how to reference it properly.


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email