- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:23:29 +0100
- CC: Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Jeffrey Mogul schrieb:
>
> 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>).
>
> 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.
I wasn't aware of the registry, nor were many other people I asked. It's
very well hidden in RFC2817 ("Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1").
So how about moving it into a separate spec for easier maintenance, and
better visibility?
Proposal at
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-status-registry-latest.html>.
Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 February 2007 18:23:40 UTC