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

Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:45:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUK8vOvf7hznyfw5f3quqkayCDEJEf_ewY7c7haWWs=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 16 July 2014 22:40, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 1) Your preferred outcome (if any)

I've described this elsewhere.

We've very few examples upon which to base this decision: 100 is
generally just bad, 101 is generally agreed to be unnecessary, and 102
is deprecated.  But the pattern that I'm seeing here is that these are
functions that generally related to protocol mechanics.

The reason we agreed that 100-continue was OK to drop was that we had
something roughly equivalent in WINDOW_UPDATE.  The reason that we all
agree 101 is unnecessary is that we have ALPN and Upgrade (from

My hypothesis is that mechanisms that operate at this level are best
addressed at the framing layer and should be constructed there.
Julian's proposal ports a *mechanism* from HTTP/1.1, not a feature.

I think that we're fine as we are now.

If someone wants to define 107 (Gossip about Sheryl's choice in
clothing), then that's how that might manifest in HTTP/1.1, but we can
just make an extension frame for that in HTTP/2.  And I'm guessing
that the HTTP/2 extension will deploy with a much higher success rate.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 16:45:48 UTC

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