Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Thu, 25 July 2013 09:07 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 93E6D21F9AFE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:07:35 -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 535OEEFA1EZR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9401421F9B10 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2HVw-0000FR-N6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:07:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:07:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2HVw-0000FR-N6@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 1V2HVn-0000D2-9Z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:07:03 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1V2HVk-0003UJ-Tn for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:07:03 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r6P96aF7002736; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:06:36 +0200
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:06:36 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130725090636.GB2346@1wt.eu>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51F0E74D.9070708@gmx.de>
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=-3.047, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2HVk-0003UJ-Tn 32fe575152bc83f0637d2d8a866cb278
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130725090636.GB2346@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18917
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 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 ?

Thanks,
Willy