- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 09:45:01 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ah, dammit; I was talking about Russell's teapot just the other day, and failed to make the connection. Happy to take a PR if you want to. > On 12 Aug 2017, at 3:00 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > See also https://martinthomson.github.io/teapot/draft-thomson-teapot.html > > I thought better of publishing it, but it seems apropos to mention. > > On 12 August 2017 at 01:45, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> That works, thanks. Note that if they do it by IESG action, the reference should NOT point to 2324, since that would cause yet more confusion about whether HTCPCP is "part" of HTTP. >> >> If they really want it as an RFC, we could also wait until HTTPtre. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 8:41 am, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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.: >>>> 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? >>> 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 <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/ >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> >> > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 12 August 2017 16:45:29 UTC