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

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:42:08 +0100, Roy T. Fielding <>  

> 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  
>> <>).

I haven't read either of these before, but isn't the HTTP 1.1-defined "202  
Accepted" exactly what 102 tries to be? From HTTP 1.1:

   The request has been accepted for processing, but the processing has not
   been completed.

The word "processing" is even mentioned twice in the first sentence.

Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 07:40:52 UTC