Re: 425 (Too Early)

I think that's a reasonable argument; since the intended use triggers automated behaviour, we want to be conservative as possible.

Next time we have a more informational 4xx proposed, 418 should be the strongly preferred option, right?

Cheers,

P.S. I'm doing some work to eradicate 418 from existing implementations. :)


> On 6 Aug 2017, at 2:55 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> Willy

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Sunday, 6 August 2017 09:46:47 UTC