Exactly. It is also very much a draft; in the most recent instance, we changed a few of the status codes, so using it in production could put you in an awkward place if we do that again (hopefully, we won't, but of course that can't be guaranteed).
That said, I'm hoping this one will settle down pretty quickly; it'll probably go through the APPAWG, then to an RFC. Once it is one, there's no requirement to use these codes if they don't make sense. Cheers, On 21/10/2011, at 2:48 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote: > On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 17:27 +0300, Andy Smith wrote: >> We need to add these codes to maintain compliance. >> >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 > > I don't see that we *need* to maintain "compliance". I see this more as > a useful set of extended HTTP status codes that we can use, if we wish, > for the purposes outlined in the draft...assuming it becomes approved. > The only compliance that we really need to maintain is with our own API > spec, and of course making sure we don't violate HTTP (which is pretty > darn liberal). > -- > Kevin L. Mitchell <[email protected]> > > This email may include confidential information. If you received it in error, > please delete it. > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
