- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:06:36 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Julian, On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:52:29AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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. I'm perfectly fine with this, I think that what is missing is just a pointer at the place the reader would find it when looking at existing status codes. I would propose to amend the following sentence in 6.1 : Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include extension status codes defined in other specifications. Like this : Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include extension status codes defined in other specifications. The complete list of status codes is maintained by the IANA. See section 8.2 for details. Would that be OK for you ? Thanks, Willy
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 09:07:03 UTC