Re: Revised Maastricht Agenda

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 21/07/2010, at 2:05 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 20.07.2010 01:58, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Suggestions still welcome; in addition to discussing HTTPbis issues, we also have historically given time at the end of the meeting to HTTP extension proposals (which aren't in-scope for the WG, but appropriate for the audience).
>> ...
> 
> Two things came to mind recently:
> 
> 
> #1 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/123
> 
> Two years ago we discussed Content-Disposition, and agreed to factor it out. In the meantime I'm done with draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http (which defines an encoding for non-ASCII characters in HTTP header field parameters), but there's only a skeleton of draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http (*) yet. I'm trying to make progress on this soonish, but of course additional review (or even editors) would help.
> 
> (*) <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-latest.html>

I've added an agenda item for this.


> #2 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3290182/rest-http-status-codes
> 
> This question comes up from time to time. I think a good answer is to use "422 Unprocessable Entity" (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.11.2>). Frequently, people claim that this isn't "an HTTP status code" as it does not appear in RFC 2616, and thus, for some reason, can't be used.
> 
> Do we need to enhance the prose about status codes not defined in the base spec?
> 
> Alternatively, if we *wanted* to pull 422 into the base spec, what would be the strategy for that? RFC 4918 is a PS, RFC 2616 is a DS, so will (likely) HTTPbis. To include a new status code would require showing it's maturity - so, how do you test that? Was it ever tested for those codes in 2616; such as 402 "Payment Required"? :-)


I think we can cover this in the discussion of registration policies already scheduled.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/