- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 10:38:54 +1000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 4 Aug 2017, at 11:18 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > Mark and I had a little disagreement about what status code to use. > That's why the draft says 4NN. > > But now it seems that people want to use this sooner rather than later > and for that we need a number. Well, we did, but the reason we went to 4NN is explained here: """ Proposals for new status codes that are not yet widely deployed ought to avoid allocating a specific number for the code until there is clear consensus that it will be registered; instead, early drafts can use a notation such as "4NN", or "3N0" .. "3N9", to indicate the class of the proposed status code(s) without consuming a number prematurely. """ - <http://httpwg.org/specs/rfc7231.html#considerations.for.new.status.codes> Personally, I think a reasonable time to nail down the status code is at WG adoption, which (chair hat on) should be very soon. Looking at the minutes, I think we can do a CfA now-ish and incorporate a code in the WG -00, after a bit of discussion. > Would anyone object to us camping on 425? It doesn't appear to be taken. The first unassigned 4NN status code in <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/> is 418. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 5 August 2017 00:39:22 UTC