W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

RE: Additional status codes in HTTP/1.1

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:05:11 +0200
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007301ce8916$126e08d0$374a1a70$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>> Shouldn't we copy them there, or at least add a reference to
> >>> RFC6585 so that implementers know that these codes exist ?
[...]
> >>
> >> 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?
> 
> As I said: it sends the wrong message. What's relevant is the IANA
> registry.
> 
> If you have a specific proposal to make *that* clearer in the spec,
> please go ahead.

What about just changing

   Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include
   extension status codes defined in other specifications.

in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-23#section-6.1 to something like

   Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include
   extension status codes defined in other specifications. IANA
   maintains a registry of all standardized status codes at [???]

Unfortunately, AFAIK, the URLs of those registries are not stable so I'm not sure how to reference it properly.


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 09:05:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC