- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:05:23 -0700
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
So, I poked a couple of implementations to see if they'd remove 418's "teapot" semantics, and there was a reaction (to put it mildly). I think we need to reserve 418 to make it clear it can't be used for the foreseeable future; when we did BIS, it was asserted that it wasn't necessary to do so, but we were either seriously misinformed, or there's been a lot of implementation of HTCPCP in the meantime. That means we need to instruct IANA to change its status to "Reserved" , e.g.: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-thanks-larry-00 ... although it'd be MUCH easier if we could just instruct IANA directly. Alexey, the registry is "IETF Review" -- is there any way we can make this kind of update without publishing an RFC? > On 6 Aug 2017, at 1:17 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 07:46:18PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> I think that's a reasonable argument; since the intended use triggers >> automated behaviour, we want to be conservative as possible. > > Thank you :-) > >> Next time we have a more informational 4xx proposed, 418 should be the >> strongly preferred option, right? > > I'm fine with this. > >> Cheers, >> >> P.S. I'm doing some work to eradicate 418 from existing implementations. :) > > Great! It must first disappear from all docs all over the net :-/ > > Willy > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 11 August 2017 15:05:50 UTC