Opened 10 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#404 closed design (fixed)
Tentative Status Codes
Reported by: | mnot@… | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 22 |
Component: | p2-semantics | Severity: | In WG Last Call |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
One of the things that has bothered me for a while is that status codes are a scarce resource, and making a "I have an idea" proposal effectively consumes one, at least for a while.
E.g., my proposal for 430 Would Block in draft-nottingham-http-pipeline had us using 431 for Request Header Fields Too Large, even though 430 might not see the light of day.
I think we might improve this by adding something like:
""" Proposals for new status codes that are not yet widely deployed SHOULD NOT specify a specific code until there is clear consensus to register it; instead, early drafts can use notation such as "4xx" to indicate the class of the proposed status code, without consuming one prematurely. """
Change History (6)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 22
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
- Owner draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@… deleted
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by fielding@…
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by fielding@…
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution incorporated deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from reopened to closed
Didn't seem to be any pushback on-list; marking for -22.