- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:05:11 +0200
- To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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