- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:29 +0200
- To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-07-25 10:39, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > ... > Then why are the other codes documented at all? They should be in the IANA > registry! Some are so obsolete they're almost never used in the wild > nowadays. > ... The registry is a set of pointers to specs. Each status code needs to be in *some* spec. If you think we should drop some specific codes, then please be more specific about which, and why that would make the spec better. > Even though the ietf process allows creation of new rfcs to extend past > ones, the common practice has been to simplify implementor's lives and > merge extensions when the extended rfc is revised. Is this process > suddenly frowned upon? The common practice *IMHO* is not to have to extend specs, but to have proper extension points, plus registries. That's how HTTP works. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 08:53:03 UTC