- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:53:47 +0200
- To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 09:51:05AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Jeu 25 juillet 2013 08:18, Julian Reschke a écrit : > > On 2013-07-25 07:24, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> A user notified me that status codes 428, 429, 431, 511 introduced in > >> RFC6585 by Mark & Roy are not mentionned at all in the current 1.1 > >> draft. > >> > >> Shouldn't we copy them there, or at least add a reference to RFC6585 so > >> that implementers know that these codes exist ? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Willy > > > > No, that would send the wrong message. > > > > The list in the spec is not exhaustive; there's an IANA registry for a > > reason. > > But is there any good reason not to consolidate the codes that were known > at the time? I was thinking the same, maybe just a pointer to the respective RFCs, especially if we know that some of them are already in use. Best regards, Willy
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 07:54:12 UTC