- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:41:25 -0700
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
On Nov 2, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > Thanks for the information. FTR, 100 and 101 were originally defined. > 102 was an extension. There have been several attempts to define a 103 > for various reasons, but they were deemed close enough to 102 that they > were not worth pursuing further. There are also many uses of 1xx status > codes within non-standard systems for which no registration was necessary, > mostly for the sake of hinting at optional features or local status. Speaking of which, I did a search and found https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008AprJun/0082.html based on the use of 103 for Google Gears resumable HTTP file uploader proposal (now lost in the bit vortex that was google code). I think it is safe to reuse 103 (since we already reused 308), but just something to keep in mind. Or, feel free to skip to 104. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 19:41:57 UTC