https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Sattarmenu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Sattarmenu
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Jung ---
Additional info. The RFC draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status/?include_text=1
says:
Responses using this status code SHOULD include an explanation, in
t
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Konstantin Kolinko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |-
Version|trunk
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #4)
> This (and any other new codes) can be added once they are approved.
+1
Any webapp that wants to use code 451 (amusing code, eh?) with a response
messa
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #3 from Julian Reschke ---
Wait.
Why add a status code that hasn't been approved yet?
The spec might go nowhere. Or it might be approved, but with a different status
code.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Jung ---
OK to add for me. The IANA link I added to the comments wasn't meant to police
other status code additions but instead to be useful for future checks. So Tim,
you might want to adjust that comment as you
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Kolinko ---
Link to versions of the proposal to add this new status code to HTTP
in IETF document tracking tool:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status/history/
The curre
