W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Proposing Status Codes

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:49:12 +1000
Message-Id: <AF11FF2D-4C52-414B-A642-7ED08E6E0A4F@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
One of the things that has bothered me for a while is that status codes are a scarce resource, and making a "I have an idea" proposal effectively consumes one, at least for a while.

E.g., my proposal for 430 Would Block in draft-nottingham-http-pipeline had us using 431 for Request Header Fields Too Large, even though 430 might not see the light of day.

I think we might improve this by adding something like:

"""
Proposals for new status codes that are not yet widely deployed SHOULD NOT specify a specific code until there is clear consensus to register it; instead, early drafts can use notation such as "4xx" to indicate the class of the proposed status code, without consuming one prematurely.
"""

to <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#considerations.for.new.status.codes>.

Thoughts?


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 23:49:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 23:49:49 GMT