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: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:35:36 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199711202135.WAA25092@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, 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/4775
Jim Gettys:
>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.

True, but the draft discusses status codes for `HTTP and HTTP-Derived
Protocols', and I suppose that for at least some HTTP-Derived
protocols, compatibility with the status code parsers of plain http
clients will not be an issue.  

And if you really want to send a 5 digit code like 45205 to a http
client without prior negotiation, you could always invent some wrapping
scheme with responses like

HTTP/1.1 299 Extended status code
Status: 45205 Epibration complete
Content-type: text/html


>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 13:39:46 UTC

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