W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: HTTP status codes

From: Albert Lunde <albert-lunde@nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 17:06:51 CDT
Message-Id: <199707232206.AA082105614@hplb>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3889
> SIP and RTSP re-use a number of HTTP status codes, among other
> properties. It is likely that they may need to or want to adopt other
> HTTP status codes that emerge in the future. Thus, it is desirable that
> the SIP and RTSP-specific status codes do not conflict with HTTP codes.
> One possible solution: Declare officially that HTTP will only use status
> codes up to x49 (say) and leave others for private extensions, including
> SIP and RTSP.

A brief inspection of the specs makes me think that what's described
aren't what I'd think of as HTTP extensions, but rather protocols that bear
the same kind of relation to HTTP that HTTP had to MIME: they
are borrowing a lot of details but doing something different.

(You might be able to make a server that talked both on one port,
but it would be a bit of a hack.)

Having multiple net-ascii-style protocols share a space of response
codes could get sticky. Even if the numbers match, you might find
that the interpretation differed. (Issues like caching are
making the meaning of HTTP/1.1 responses a bit more complex.)

    Albert Lunde                      Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 1997 15:10:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC