Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Thu, 25 July 2013 09:18 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 57D8421F9B91 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, 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 pYuCUKLF6C32 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE75121F9ADA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2Hg4-0006me-PM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:17:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:17:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2Hg4-0006me-PM@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1V2Hfw-0006hJ-Gn for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:17:32 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1V2Hfv-0003uO-9I for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:17:32 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r6P9H8MC002858; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:17:08 +0200
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:17:08 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130725091708.GC2346@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=-3.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.029, FAKE_REPLY_C=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2Hfv-0003uO-9I aa62963aca470228cebdc70fb799358a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130725091708.GC2346@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18919
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 Markus,

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> 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.

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.

Regards,
Willy