Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)

• From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
• Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:53:25 +1200
• To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
• Message-ID: <53C7F175.8020905@treenet.co.nz>

On 17/07/2014 5:40 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> <https://gist.github.com/reschke/48ec30b0ac9d012b8b4e> for an idea of how this would look in the spec.
> 
> b) Publishing a separate document deprecating 1xx status codes
>     Thereby preventing the establishment of new ones (HTTP/2 already defines how to deal with 100, and 101 is not relevant to this protocol. 102 was dropped by its primary use case, WebDAV, here: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918#appendix-F.3>)
> 
> I'd like to hear:
> 
> 1) Your preferred outcome (if any)
> 2) Whether you can live with the other option, and if not, why
> 
> "I have no preference" is useful information too.
> 

Given the two I prefer A.
 Nit: "arent't suitable" -> "are not suitable"

I would also like to see A modified to include the clarification
discussed on the gateway operations mapping the status codes 1.1->2 and
2->1.1 using WINDOW_UPDATE. With text explicitly deprecating the status
100 and 101 (only) in HEADERS.

Amos

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 15:54:03 UTC