Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 25 July 2013 16:58 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 323DA21F85C9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:58:02 -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 mofEZefWZsgR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DEB21F8925 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2OqI-0007H2-8p for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:56:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:56:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2OqI-0007H2-8p@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 1V2Oq6-0007FC-Pp for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:56:30 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V2Oq6-0001Qq-1s for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:56:30 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.88.131]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MXq3L-1UYvsj1T4J-00Wj38 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:56:04 +0200
Message-ID: <51F15893.6030000@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:55:47 +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: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <20130725052453.GC31954@1wt.eu> <51F0C34B.1030709@gmx.de> <4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <51F0E0C5.90606@gmx.de> <845703f5f08afaa813f0a78d415d2d16.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <51F0E74D.9070708@gmx.de> <20130725090636.GB2346@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20130725090636.GB2346@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:gEXJgjFL06pqfAShDCsOGA/4KqtM6lrw7GYanne9YCONDVO9+Lo AiHKSIqwLRKYcl2dY0LfQajC6tjuWpvPAmW0ku+HMRRCXVc9hf3jDVkmaoUpq/fqjb3CzQj 027ptvBSQ7gL+gPYIpCzxdKKwkkteMZtZC+DEeNSFre95XtMRQa7ANrKELGcQGZtLafCmrv C9aDkZpznRrRGG5u8CMaw==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.370, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2Oq6-0001Qq-1s f8d27e3f527fbd4842ff5c184d0c0baf
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F15893.6030000@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18923
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 11:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:52:29AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2013-07-25 10:39, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 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.
>>> ...
>>
>> The registry is a set of pointers to specs. Each status code needs to be
>> in *some* spec.
>
> I'm perfectly fine with this, I think that what is missing is just a
> pointer at the place the reader would find it when looking at existing
> status codes.
>
> I would propose to amend the following sentence in 6.1 :
>
>     Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include
>     extension status codes defined in other specifications.
>
> Like this :
>
>     Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include
>     extension status codes defined in other specifications. The
>     complete list of status codes is maintained by the IANA. See
>     section 8.2 for details.
>
> Would that be OK for you ?

Si.

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2310>

Best regards, Julian