Re: Proposing Status Codes

I'd hope that early deployment != long-term deployment generally?

-=R

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 12.06.2012 11:49, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> One of the things that has bothered me for a while is that status
>> codes are a scarce resource, and making a "I have an idea" proposal
>> effectively consumes one, at least for a while.
>>
>> E.g., my proposal for 430 Would Block in
>> draft-nottingham-http-pipeline had us using 431 for Request Header
>> Fields Too Large, even though 430 might not see the light of day.
>>
>> I think we might improve this by adding something like:
>>
>> """
>> Proposals for new status codes that are not yet widely deployed
>> SHOULD NOT specify a specific code until there is clear consensus to
>> register it; instead, early drafts can use notation such as "4xx" to
>> indicate the class of the proposed status code, without consuming one
>> prematurely.
>> """
>>
>> to
>>
>> <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/**svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-**
>> httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.**html#considerations.for.new.**status.codes<https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#considerations.for.new.status.codes>
>> >.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> Sounds good. Also prevents old drafts lying around consuming numbers.
>
> But, how do early deployments know what to test with for interoperability
> and possible long-term deployments?
>
> AYJ
>
>