Re: 425 (Too Early)

On 11/08/2017 16:05, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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?
This probably can be done with an IESG action. But you already wrote a 
draft, I can just AD sponsor it. If IESG says "don't publish as an RFC", 
we can skip publishing it.

>> 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 15:42:38 UTC