- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:44:41 +1000
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12/06/2012, at 10:28 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 12.06.2012 12:21, James M Snell wrote: >> My apologies... accidentally responded directly to Mark instead of the >> group... Another possible approach to early implementation is to >> designate a range of experimental, non-production status codes for >> early development purposes that MUST NOT be used in production... once >> the draft progresses to a reasonable stage (well beyond -01, the real >> status can be assigned to the spec by the registrar rather than by the >> spec author. I know schemes like this can tend to be problematic (e.g. >> all those damn X- HTTP headers) so I'm not sure if it's a path we >> should go down, but it's an idea at least. >> > > You mean 490-499 for a 4XX exeprimental status? > Or completely out of the way range like 700-799? with requirement that once RFCs exist the experiments be dropped. I think that managing that changeover would be very tricky. However we do this, it's not going to be perfect; I just want to avoid the more experimental / tentative proposals from consuming codes (especially since they sometimes sit for a while). E.g., a -00 draft would use "4xx", and maybe through -01, -02, but once it was clear it has momentum, and people want to start implementing, *then* you choose a code. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:45:11 UTC