W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

[NEW ISSUE] HTTP status code registry, was: Status 102

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:07:30 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1171757250.3556.22.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
lör 2007-02-17 klockan 19:23 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:

> I wasn't aware of the registry, nor were many other people I asked. It's 
> very well hidden in RFC2817 ("Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1").
> So how about moving it into a separate spec for easier maintenance, and 
> better visibility?

Or better yet add the IANA http status code registry reference to
RFC2616bis declaring that IANA is responsible for maintaining the status
code registry?

Having "registry" type RFCs never works out well as these needs to be
updated before the next draft needing a new status code is published.
This job is much better done by IANA.

6.1.1 Status Code and Reason Phrase

just after the status code class definitions add something like the

   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry
   for HTTP status codes and suggested reason phrases. The values
   defined here is only the initial set defined for HTTP/1.1.


Received on Sunday, 18 February 2007 00:07:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:41 UTC