RE: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Thu, 25 July 2013 09:37 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 B11A121F9928 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:37:48 -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 q41go0t5+3LA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D727021F9546 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2Hz1-00086D-O4 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:37:15 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:37:15 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2Hz1-00086D-O4@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 1V2Hys-00085U-QG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:37:06 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>) id 1V2Hyq-0004jp-Rk for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:37:06 +0000
Received: from Vostro3500 ([79.48.108.27]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LZzKf-1UNhox3o8D-00lnvl for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:36:39 +0200
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <20130725091708.GC2346@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20130725091708.GC2346@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:36:33 +0200
Message-ID: <007c01ce891a$7453d850$5cfb88f0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac6JF72vU+7RZvQOSwaE/aQZqKaguQAAnfKg
Content-Language: de
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:7ifWFRstJAHo6UdnZHsPj9dLVCN6f7D+/z/oUnszzWODPoSo873 QDmUzAT3HjtXGRoAcIfRa2wAUY7iRTgKTTiAqLM8Q7YJkU1V+TvGU4P1NcrpoG9NiblYsKX HdXxirOcklvtr02b7P+DaaStJzNU0v7FwgVFVcRU1WlI5zH2XD7820t2BmrYlNOvxj7YnbL PIs9TKd2mHOKEnGXYr+1w==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=markus.lanthaler@gmx.net; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.150, 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 1V2Hyq-0004jp-Rk 3466bc62bc253dd18d56b9860165c098
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/007c01ce891a$7453d850$5cfb88f0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18921
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 11:17 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> There's already the pointer in section 8.2 which is dediated to this,
> so I think it's better to just refer to this section from 6.1 so that
> readers know that there are additional details.

I would prefer to have a direct link. I see no need for another level of
indirection IMO.. adding a sentence like "for additional details, see
section 8.2" would of course be fine.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler