Re: 425 (Too Early)

Hi Mark,

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'm in fact worried by the possible lack of transparency we could meet
on certain intermediaries or web anti-viruses causing 0-RTT to become as
unreliable as pipelining once was for HTTP/1.1. Here we need a "clean"
status code with no particular history because it will act a bit like a
redirect and will induce some automated processing from the user agent.
Thus I'm not happy at all with using an already known code for this draft
even if the code was known for wrong reasons.

For most status codes we only need something informative reported to the
user (like was the case for 451) and that would have been fine, but here
I think we may regret it.

Thus better use 425 (or even 419 if you want to take the first unused
code), and all agree here that the next 4xx status code not inducing
automated processing will be 418.


Received on Sunday, 6 August 2017 04:55:46 UTC