- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:42:08 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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. ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 3 February 2007 22:35:30 UTC