W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:14:58 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6422.1405602898@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <53C7CAD4.6080909@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:

>> We can do 100 better, don't need 101 and we have no idea how any
>> future 1xx codes might or might not work anyway.
>
>The last part doesn't make any sense.
>
>My proposal is to treat them *exactly* as in 1.1.
>
>What exactly do you mean by "might or might not work"?

We've seen only one new additional 1xx code in ages and we already
regretted it.

I'm against adding a "contigency plan" to HTTP/2 on the unlikely
probability that 103 will ever happen, given that 1xx already works
like shit in HTTP/1.

Nobody says we cannot add support for 1xx later, if it suddenly
transpires to be a killer-app for something.

In the meantime I propose we add a flag to HEADERS (ON_YOUR_SIGNAL
?) and give it the meaning "I'll send the body when you send me a
WINDOWS UPDATE" and close the long sad saga of 1xx dysfunctionality.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 13:15:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC