- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:28:25 +0200
- To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@meta.com>
- Cc: Silas Barta <sbarta@gmail.com>, Ryan Globus <rglobus@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 06:35:09PM +0000, Ben Schwartz wrote: > Please don't pick explicit status code numbers in drafts before adoption. > The best practice is to notate the proposed status code as "1TBD" or similar, > as the final value will be chosen by the working group. Otherwise, there is > a risk of early implementations polluting the codepoint space. Good point! > Personally, I don't understand why a new status code is needed at all. A > response header seems sufficient to accomplish the same result. It depends if the purpose is to respond quickly before a slow response or to notify while responding (which I don't know), because interim responses are indeed used to notify upfront that something is currently being processed before the final response finally arrives. But it's true that if the original draft envisioned a 3xx code, it was expecting to announce the situation along with the final response so maybe 1xx is indeed not needed and a header field would do the job. Willy
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2025 19:28:54 UTC