Re: 425 (Too Early)

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.:

... 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 <> 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

Received on Friday, 11 August 2017 15:05:50 UTC