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: Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:31:33 -0800
Message-Id: <200702061931.l16JVXvw009823@pobox-pa.hpl.hp.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: adrien@qbik.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

    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 
Remember: there is an IANA "HTTP Status Code Registry", at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>, so people
should check this registry before choosing new status codes.

Not that draft-decroy-http-progress-00.txt necessarily justifies
one, of course.

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 19:32:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:21 UTC