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

HTTP status code registry, was: Status 102, Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-decroy-http-progress-00.txt]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:23:29 +0100
Message-ID: <45D74821.1060604@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT