Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.2.20041209164619.05472298@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:49:41 -0600
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r111386 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES
  /httpd/httpd/trunk/include/httpd.h
  /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20041209224000.GB17348@redhat.com>
References: <20041209224000.GB17348@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 04:40 PM 12/9/2004, Joe Orton wrote:
>> 
>> We are obviously a very strong reference implementation.  Once
>> a response identifier is defined by an RFC - it's in everyone's
>> interest to document that a given response code is now reserved
>> with a particular purpose.
>
>No, that's the IANA's job.
>
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes

I knew it!  But of course, I was reviewing 2616 for the designated
registry.

I still have no issue with coding all entries in the base and the
extended standards, and in this case, if it is truly broken, we
should add it to keep it reserved for httpd authors, and comment
that (?) Roy thinks this is a bad idea?  I have no idea, but to
the extent it is broken, we don't want folks spitting out 226's
just because they were looking for a handy code.

Bill