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

Re: WG Last Call for draft-schulzrinne-http-status-00.txt

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:21:14 -0800
Message-Id: <9711202021.AA23153@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4774
Whether at least existing HTTP implementations can possibly use
more than three digits depends strongly on implementation details:

a) If the implementation takes the code, and then performs a MOD 100
operation, to get a subcode for the code type, then it makes sense to
allow for more than three digit status codes.

b) If existing implementations just take the first decimal digit,
and then switch off of the remaining digits, more than 3 digit status
codes are feasible.

Without some data on whether implementations (particularly proxies) do 
a) or b), any discussion of more than three digit codes is pretty silly.

I suspect that a) predominates, but having never implemented a proxy
or server, or for that matter, client library, I can't say.

So implementers, how is the jungle out there???

				Your editor,
					- Jim Gettys
Received on Thursday, 20 November 1997 12:29:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC