- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: 2013年7月25日 18:55:47 +0200
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- CC: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51F15893.6030000@gmx.de>
On 2013年07月25日 11:06, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Julian, > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:52:29AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2013年07月25日 10:39, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >>> ... >>> Then why are the other codes documented at all? They should be in the IANA >>> registry! Some are so obsolete they're almost never used in the wild >>> nowadays. >>> ... >> >> The registry is a set of pointers to specs. Each status code needs to be >> in *some* spec. > > I'm perfectly fine with this, I think that what is missing is just a > pointer at the place the reader would find it when looking at existing > status codes. > > I would propose to amend the following sentence in 6.1 : > > Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include > extension status codes defined in other specifications. > > Like this : > > Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include > extension status codes defined in other specifications. The > complete list of status codes is maintained by the IANA. See > section 8.2 for details. > > Would that be OK for you ? Si. <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2310> Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 16:56:30 UTC