IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 25 July 2013 09:15 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 A490221F9AF8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:15:20 -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 Xd9h17yOYWCk for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E504321F9B19 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2HdF-0002b1-Jz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:14:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:14:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2HdF-0002b1-Jz@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 1V2Hd6-0002TL-O2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:14:36 +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 1V2Hd5-0003mM-Lv for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:14:36 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([93.217.84.44]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lrek1-1U60fE1UEP-013L8Z for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:14:09 +0200
Message-ID: <51F0EC5C.2040302@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:14:04 +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: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <20130725052453.GC31954@1wt.eu> <51F0C34B.1030709@gmx.de> <4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <51F0E0C5.90606@gmx.de> <007301ce8916$126e08d0$374a1a70$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <007301ce8916$126e08d0$374a1a70$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:OIvPQEbD8J+/cUDkTR6SEt+qw4Oopb/cZpVrATWyIfGS6v/CIGf 1vUFOWp4bK++gaTOZIfUy6cJqUhiD0K1GRmLmyVoWfZOlOvMFBMn/x+f6rTaQ8GjbO87xd0 uGRoUIoaTYtMRGz1iYRDJ2pv6hWXfK3eNhYWONTAqgAbc7M3Yv2OIKEmp29D2khhaOHwxLf JuBdXauJYoaaO7uyyQrPg==
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=-3.403, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2Hd5-0003mM-Lv e693480c7d3f451293dbee9cade2ad81
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F0EC5C.2040302@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18918
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 11:05, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> ...
> 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.
> ...

Well, they really really should be stable :-)

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email