- From: Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:31:33 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: adrien@qbik.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.10.1>).
Remember: there is an IANA "HTTP Status Code Registry", at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>, so people
should check this registry before choosing new status codes.
Not that draft-decroy-http-progress-00.txt necessarily justifies
one, of course.
-Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 19:32:15 UTC