W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:39:23 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0E144312-DF69-4478-8E81-E173E79CE12A@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 27 Jun 2014, at 7:20 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-06-27 09:56, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/535>
>> 
>> This seems like a re-opening of <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/264>. We discussed it a fair amount in the Seattle interim, and there was pretty strong support in the room for getting rid of 1xx status, especially since they're poorly supported in implementations, almost non-existant in APIs, and often don't survive hop-to-hop.
>> 
>> Julian, anything to add? I'm inclined to close this as a duplicate unless there's significant new information...
> 
> I still fail to see a compelling reason to remove them.
> 
> Why do we keep trailers, but not 1xx? I'd like to understand how we draw the line.

My .02 - trailers work in a way where they may not get used much, but some people still find them useful, and they don't cause significant issues. 

1xx, OTOH, has a track record of causing considerable havoc, and as has been pointed out many times, its semantics are better expressed in the framing layer.

That said, it's very much a judgement call. When we made that decision, we discussed it both in an interim and on the list:
  http://www.w3.org/mid/D630DC2F-1FBF-4824-AE5E-1CF81F65DD03@mnot.net
... and there was considerable support for -- and no pushback against -- doing it. 

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 05:39:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:08 UTC