Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

"Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> Thu, 25 July 2013 08:41 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 C902421F9B25 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:41:07 -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 FH0Llco1zgLG for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4293321F99BE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2H5a-0001Vx-7T for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:39:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:39:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2H5a-0001Vx-7T@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 1V2H5Q-0001Ut-0L for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:39:48 +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 1V2H5P-0001lY-3w for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:39:47 +0000
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org ([88.174.226.208]) by mwinf8507-out with ME id 4YfL1m00C4WQcrc03YfLQF; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:39:20 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A162E1314; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:39:20 +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 YeIoOgKsMDAD; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:39:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:39:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 192.196.142.21 (SquirrelMail authenticated user nim) by arekh.dyndns.org with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:39:18 +0200
Message-ID: <845703f5f08afaa813f0a78d415d2d16.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <51F0E0C5.90606@gmx.de>
References: <20130725052453.GC31954@1wt.eu> <51F0C34B.1030709@gmx.de> <4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <51F0E0C5.90606@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:39:18 +0200
From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, "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=-3.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.053, 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 1V2H5P-0001lY-3w 19e58e7178dd97d402929f73d34a42bf
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/845703f5f08afaa813f0a78d415d2d16.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18914
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 10:24, Julian Reschke a écrit :
> 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.

Then why are the other codes documented at all? They should be in the IANA
registry! Some are so obsolete they're almost never used in the wild
nowadays.

Even though the ietf process allows creation of new rfcs to extend past
ones, the common practice has been to simplify implementor's lives and
merge extensions when the extended rfc is revised. Is this process
suddenly frowned upon?

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot