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

Re: Proposing Status Codes

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:08:28 +1200
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ea40c94f304275d2cedb72c5fc71d6da@treenet.co.nz>
On 12.06.2012 11:49, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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?

Sounds good. Also prevents old drafts lying around consuming numbers.

But, how do early deployments know what to test with for 
interoperability and possible long-term deployments?

AYJ
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:08:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:09:03 GMT