- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:41:45 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11/08/2017 16:05, Mark Nottingham wrote: > So, I poked a couple of implementations to see if they'd remove 418's "teapot" semantics, and there was a reaction (to put it mildly). > > I think we need to reserve 418 to make it clear it can't be used for the foreseeable future; when we did BIS, it was asserted that it wasn't necessary to do so, but we were either seriously misinformed, or there's been a lot of implementation of HTCPCP in the meantime. > > That means we need to instruct IANA to change its status to "Reserved" , e.g.: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-thanks-larry-00 > ... although it'd be MUCH easier if we could just instruct IANA directly. Alexey, the registry is "IETF Review" -- is there any way we can make this kind of update without publishing an RFC? This probably can be done with an IESG action. But you already wrote a draft, I can just AD sponsor it. If IESG says "don't publish as an RFC", we can skip publishing it. >> On 6 Aug 2017, at 1:17 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 07:46:18PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> I think that's a reasonable argument; since the intended use triggers >>> automated behaviour, we want to be conservative as possible. >> Thank you :-) >> >>> Next time we have a more informational 4xx proposed, 418 should be the >>> strongly preferred option, right? >> I'm fine with this. >> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> P.S. I'm doing some work to eradicate 418 from existing implementations. :) >> Great! It must first disappear from all docs all over the net :-/ >> >> Willy >> > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >
Received on Friday, 11 August 2017 15:42:38 UTC