W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Status 102, Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-decroy-http-progress-00.txt]

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:42:08 -0800
Message-Id: <71FDCE00-22D0-485D-883B-A348274C8A7C@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Feb 3, 2007, at 2:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> I haven't read the document in detail yet, but one thing that  
> should be considered is the choice of the new status code, 102. It  
> collides with the definition in RFC2518, a standards track RFC (see  
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.10.1>).

Well, considering the rationale is based on using NTLM
authentication (a non-standard authentication mechanism that does
not work outside an intranet and isn't valid for HTTP anyway) for
requests to proxies performing whole-content filtering (an architecture
that definitely won't work with NTLM), I don't think you should
worry about it.  Band-aids are not sufficient for amputated limbs.

Received on Saturday, 3 February 2007 22:35:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:41 UTC