Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Thu, 25 July 2013 05:28 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 61EE021F9635 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:28:06 -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 PHvY5FDE+MHY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32F621F86B2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2E3L-0001dC-Hh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:25:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:25:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2E3L-0001dC-Hh@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1V2E39-0001b6-RE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:25:15 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1V2E39-0006bR-2V for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:25:15 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r6P5Orcw001491 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:24:53 +0200
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:24:53 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130725052453.GC31954@1wt.eu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.060, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1V2E39-0006bR-2V 533a677f74ec257841d7d419ead62c16
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130725052453.GC31954@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18908
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>

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