Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 25 July 2013 08:54 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 A54AA21F9133 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:54:37 -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 Xfg1tqdNq1Ub for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A81721F918C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2HIP-0000XO-LR for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:53:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:53:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2HIP-0000XO-LR@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 1V2HIF-0000WI-Cw for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:53:03 +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 1V2HIE-0002Rj-I5 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:53:03 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([93.217.84.44]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M7UUd-1U8oHT1FVX-00xJ9V for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:36 +0200
Message-ID: <51F0E74D.9070708@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:29 +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: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, 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>
In-Reply-To: <845703f5f08afaa813f0a78d415d2d16.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:2gMGVmA7lVtBWjjfTIKHSGW5R6cgXK1hz+NbaaTSkJDfgq6bfpV 4sN5hB7buA5T/zNi8VGptcmfve/oydBxzzztRWWq0cIuhJqhoofn488D5Tf0E3gqtN34jxU dxx4TuZuxFE+7yPWlt++oVTJ80ngYTipQQpxf5qPyC6sTMP0CZGarfyOoFwOasCWzpCLo5C i+CuY66bMU/8LKwI/5YRQ==
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=-3.436, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2HIE-0002Rj-I5 be45ee7ea103f7abb0498a501b3c02f6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F0E74D.9070708@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18915
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 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.

If you think we should drop some specific codes, then please be more 
specific about which, and why that would make the spec better.

> Even though the ietf process allows creation of new rfcs to extend past
> ones, the common practice has been to simplify implementor's lives and
> merge extensions when the extended rfc is revised. Is this process
> suddenly frowned upon?

The common practice *IMHO* is not to have to extend specs, but to have 
proper extension points, plus registries. That's how HTTP works.

Best regards, Julian