RE: extending status codes

I think the point is that the HTTP status code registry should be
described in the (updated) HTTP 1.1 specification, rather than
buried in a document about upgrading to TLS in HTTP.

I think this is another instance of incorporating (or at least
referencing) material from other RFCs that updated or extended
the HTTP specification.

Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:19 AM
To: Robert Sayre
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group
Subject: Re: extending status codes


* Robert Sayre wrote:
>I recently got into a debate with a colleague about whether it would
>be acceptable to use higher 5xx codes for custom status codes. I
>maintained no, it's a shared namespace, we shouldn't do that. But the
>response was "show me where it says you can't do that". To me it seems
>implied, but maybe it's not to someone who wants to Get Work Done as
>fast as possible by writing a switch statement on a number.
>
>Could we get a sentence explaining that adding status codes requires
>coordination?

RFC 2817 already states

   Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review in
   the form of a standards track document within the IETF Applications
   Area.  Any such document SHOULD be traceable through statuses of
   either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard for
   HTTP/1.1 [1].

What should be added, and where, in addition to that?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 18:24:57 UTC