- From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 16:03:06 +1000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5 August 2017 at 13:55, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > HTCPCP was a joke protocol to point out all of the bad ways that people try to reuse HTTP, so there's a certain amount of irony here. I don't think a couple of deployments of a joke is enough to justify consuming a code point in such a constrained name space. > > IIRC we discussed this as part of BIS and explicitly decided not to reserve 418. > > Now, we could make an argument to skip over it now and use it when we've exhausted other 4NN code points, but personally my inclination is to do it now; if we don't want it to ossify, the earlier the better. > > Cheers, > The only time I ever used a 418 response it was for some sort of detectable chalk-and-cheese mismatch, specifics of which I can't remember now, but it felt better at the time to misuse the teapot code than to mint a new application-specific 4xx, or to use a combination of 400+payload. It feels a bit off ditching a status code that doesn't have a similar, more-official version (like 420 Enhance Your Calm vs 429 Too Many Requests). That said, I'm not sure if I've read RFC 2324 the wrong way; maybe it would have been more correct for me to signal the error in the content-type rather than the status code. Anyway, off-topic for the discussion at hand. Cheers -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Saturday, 5 August 2017 06:03:49 UTC