Changeset 2085


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jan 5, 2013, 12:35:43 AM (7 years ago)
Author:
fielding@…
Message:

(editorial) Suggest that proposals for new status codes use a pseudonym like 4NN until there is consensus for registration; addresses #404

Location:
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
Files:
2 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

    r2084 r2085  
    32363236         mandate a zero-length payload body.
    32373237      </p>
    3238       <p id="rfc.section.8.2.2.p.3">A definition for a new status code ought to explain the request conditions that would cause a response containing that status
     3238      <p id="rfc.section.8.2.2.p.3">Proposals for new status codes that are not yet widely deployed ought to avoid allocating a specific number for the code until
     3239         there is clear consensus that it will be registered; instead, early drafts can use a notation such as "4NN", or "3N0" .. "3N9",
     3240         to indicate the class of the proposed status code(s) without consuming a number prematurely.
     3241      </p>
     3242      <p id="rfc.section.8.2.2.p.4">A definition for a new status code ought to explain the request conditions that would cause a response containing that status
    32393243         code (e.g., combinations of request header fields and/or method(s)) along with any dependencies on response header fields
    32403244         (e.g., what fields are required, what fields can modify the semantics, and what header field semantics are further refined
    32413245         when used with the new status code).
    32423246      </p>
    3243       <p id="rfc.section.8.2.2.p.4">A response that can transfer a payload ought to specify expected cache behavior (e.g., cacheability and freshness criteria,
     3247      <p id="rfc.section.8.2.2.p.5">A response that can transfer a payload ought to specify expected cache behavior (e.g., cacheability and freshness criteria,
    32443248         as described in <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.15"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) and whether the payload has any implied association with an identified resource (<a href="#identifying.payload" title="Identifying a Representation">Section&nbsp;3.1.4.1</a>).
    32453249      </p>
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml

    r2084 r2085  
    41744174</t>
    41754175<t>
     4176   Proposals for new status codes that are not yet widely deployed ought to
     4177   avoid allocating a specific number for the code until there is clear
     4178   consensus that it will be registered; instead, early drafts can use a
     4179   notation such as "4NN", or "3N0" .. "3N9", to indicate the class
     4180   of the proposed status code(s) without consuming a number prematurely.
     4181</t>
     4182<t>
    41764183   A definition for a new status code ought to explain the request
    41774184   conditions that would cause a response containing that status code (e.g.,
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.