Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

"Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> Thu, 25 July 2013 07:53 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 4153021F9A17 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 yeb8e3prZrFd for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F9D21F99F7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2GL2-00080r-Sl for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:51:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:51:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2GL2-00080r-Sl@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>) id 1V2GKp-0007yL-H1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:51:39 +0000
Received: from smtpout4.laposte.net ([193.253.67.229] helo=smtpout.laposte.net) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>) id 1V2GKm-0008Fl-Ft for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:51:38 +0000
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org ([88.174.226.208]) by mwinf8507-out with ME id 4Xr81m0034WQcrc03Xr8M5; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:51:09 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684DE2E1314; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:51:07 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at arekh.dyndns.org
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arekh.okg [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rncith8LB1Cj; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:51:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:51:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 192.196.142.21 (SquirrelMail authenticated user nim) by arekh.dyndns.org with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:51:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <51F0C34B.1030709@gmx.de>
References: <20130725052453.GC31954@1wt.eu> <51F0C34B.1030709@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:51:05 +0200
From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22-10.fc19
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.253.67.229; envelope-from=nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net; helo=smtpout.laposte.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.279, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2GKm-0008Fl-Ft 602e0939c764de5a570fe87a0b73362c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18911
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>

Le Jeu 25 juillet 2013 08:18, Julian Reschke a écrit :
> On 2013-07-25 07:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> A user notified me that status codes 428, 429, 431, 511 introduced in
>> RFC6585 by Mark & Roy are not mentionned at all in the current 1.1
>> draft.
>>
>> Shouldn't we copy them there, or at least add a reference to RFC6585 so
>> that implementers know that these codes exist ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Willy
>
> 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?

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot