- From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 08:49:50 -0700
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 4 August 2017 at 23:08, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:55:31PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> 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. > > I have an argument for skipping it, which is that it's part of a > contiguous range of 3 codes and that we need only one. There are > isolated holes likes 425 and 427 and I'd rather fill these holes > when we need a single code, and use larger areas when we need > contiguous series. Is there any existing use case for contiguous error codes within the hundred ranges? FTR I agree with Amos Jeffries: any formal definition of 418 at least be consistent with the well-known meaning from the joke. -- Eitan Adler
Received on Saturday, 5 August 2017 15:50:43 UTC