IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Thu, 25 July 2013 07:54 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 CFF3621F9A17 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:54:51 -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 H7caP0rc-p0Y for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD19921F99F7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2GNR-0008Gr-I0 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:54:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:54:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2GNR-0008Gr-I0@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 1V2GNI-0008Fg-3I for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:54:12 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1V2GNH-0008Qw-56 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:54:12 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r6P7rluA002164; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:53:47 +0200
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:53:47 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130725075347.GF31954@1wt.eu>
References: <20130725052453.GC31954@1wt.eu> <51F0C34B.1030709@gmx.de> <4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4251ed6b50ac66a402e3956437e5780a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
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=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.110, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2GNH-0008Qw-56 7c31ba791d84e14bafb0c04f0a8fcb13
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130725075347.GF31954@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18912
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 Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 09:51:05AM +0200, 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?

I was thinking the same, maybe just a pointer to the respective RFCs,
especially if we know that some of them are already in use.

Best regards,
Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email