- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:19:00 +0200
- To: "Robert Sayre" <sayrer@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Robert Sayre wrote: >I recently got into a debate with a colleague about whether it would >be acceptable to use higher 5xx codes for custom status codes. I >maintained no, it's a shared namespace, we shouldn't do that. But the >response was "show me where it says you can't do that". To me it seems >implied, but maybe it's not to someone who wants to Get Work Done as >fast as possible by writing a switch statement on a number. > >Could we get a sentence explaining that adding status codes requires >coordination? RFC 2817 already states Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review in the form of a standards track document within the IETF Applications Area. Any such document SHOULD be traceable through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard for HTTP/1.1 [1]. What should be added, and where, in addition to that? -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 18:19:10 UTC