Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 25 July 2013 08:26 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 E29B921F99E3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:26:07 -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 3jAV+uTbUC33 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A900521F99C1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2GrR-0008J3-1R for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:25:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:25:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2GrR-0008J3-1R@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V2GrG-0008IK-ND for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:25:10 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V2GrF-00017V-Hl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:25:10 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([84.187.36.190]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MNZgw-1V0eI43dyE-007Gcs for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:24:43 +0200
Message-ID: <51F0E0C5.90606@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:24:37 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <20130725052453.GC31954@1wt.eu> <51F0C34B.1030709@gmx.de> <4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:rDsim0uRS7qbRMbdWImlmXpSsNLQrW7s78UKoEq3CwRGfIUD2bP SA9gcOB4NE4azxNBDdgSRAEh48lld+9Eyw2NLcGAbs0LhcY6rrx02cmGZ3OJAxhmVQF41qK B/9dGGpXcz52rDpwAXkLCtl0lhS8I91KnlYkYuvWcgb9w2nSnv6y7r3ftykbp55f8Q42fl8 OC4eSrZwY7TBYhqHQhqqQ==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2GrF-00017V-Hl 829e2a1943a5ee54d147a666fadbbfca
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F0E0C5.90606@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18913
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 2013-07-25 09:51, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> 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?

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.

Best regards, Julian