Re: Status 102, Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-decroy-http-progress-00.txt]

On Feb 3, 2007, at 2:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> I haven't read the document in detail yet, but one thing that  
> should be considered is the choice of the new status code, 102. It  
> collides with the definition in RFC2518, a standards track RFC (see  
> <>).

Well, considering the rationale is based on using NTLM
authentication (a non-standard authentication mechanism that does
not work outside an intranet and isn't valid for HTTP anyway) for
requests to proxies performing whole-content filtering (an architecture
that definitely won't work with NTLM), I don't think you should
worry about it.  Band-aids are not sufficient for amputated limbs.


Received on Saturday, 3 February 2007 22:35:30 UTC