WordPress.org

Make WordPress Core

Opened 4 years ago

Closed 3 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

#13955 closed defect (bug) (invalid)

Updated / corrected List of HTTP status codes

Reported by: hakre Owned by:
Milestone: Priority: low
Severity: trivial Version: 3.0
Component: HTTP API Keywords:
Focuses: Cc:

Description

HTTP status code have changed. Additionally the 306 status code introduce in #9297 / [10740] (reserved) does not exists. I think it was taken by misreading the IANA list.

I've not only checked the (since then updated) IANA list now but also each RFC on it's own.

Updated the list of HTTP Status Code Header Descriptions stored in the global variable $wp_header_to_desc used by the functions status_header and get_status_header_desc to include a few missing codes for 100% compliance with HTTP 1.1 protocol.

Attachments (1)

13955.patch (775 bytes) - added by hakre 4 years ago.
Missing Status Codes / 306 is not a HTTP status code.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (12)

hakre4 years ago

Missing Status Codes / 306 is not a HTTP status code.

comment:1 hakre4 years ago

Related: #13940 - you find a lot of my research work on this one here documented over there.

But this ticket here is more straight forward.

More references can be found here:

RFC1945: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945
Date: May 1996
Category: Informational
(status code note: Some; In: 6.1.1. Status Code and Reason Phrase)

RFC2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2295
Date: March 1998
Category: Experimental
(status code note: One; In: 8.1. 506 Variant Also Negotiates)

RFC2518: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring -- WEBDAV

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2518
Category: Standards Track
Obsoleted by: 4918
(status code note: Not counted; See: [RFC4918])

RFC2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616
Date: June 1999
Category: Standards Track
Updated by: 2817, 5785
Obsoletes: 2068
(status code note: Some; In: 6.1.1. Status Code and Reason Phrase)

RFC2774: An HTTP Extension Framework

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2774
Date: February 2000
Category: Experimental
(status code note: One; In: 7. 510 Not Extended)

RFC2817: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817
Date: May 2000
Category: Standards Track
Updates: 2616
(status code note: One; In: 2. Introduction)

RFC2818: HTTP Over TLS

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818
Date: May 2000
Category: Informational
Updated by: 5785
(status code note: None; This document does not handle http status codes)

RFC3229: Delta encoding in HTTP

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3229
Date: January 2002
Category: Standards Track
(status code note: One; In: 10.4.1. 226 IM Used)


RFC4918: HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918
Category: Standards Track
Obsoletes: 2518
Updated by: 5689
(status code note: Some; In: 11. Status Code Extensions to HTTP/1.1)

RFC5689: Extended MKCOL for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5689
Date: September 2009
Category: Standards Track
Updates: 4791, 4918
(status code note: None; As per Section 9.3.1 of [RFC4918]. In: 3.2. Status Codes)


RFC5785: Defining Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785
Date: April 2010
Category: Standards Track
Updates: 2616, 2818
(status code note: None; This document does not handle http status codes)

RFC5842: Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5842
Date: April 2010
Category: Standards Track
Updates: 2616, 2818
(status code note: 2; In: 7. Additional Status Codes)

comment:2 follow-up: nacin4 years ago

While we're at it I think we need to support http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html as well.

comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 ; follow-up: hakre4 years ago

  • Keywords has-patch added

Replying to nacin:

While we're at it I think we need to support http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html as well.

hmm, I'm not so sure ... maybe you mixed it with http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2324.html ? :)


RFC2518 (obsolete by 4918): 102 : Processing - Why does IANA keep references to obsoleted tracks on their list?

I've seen enough http status codes for the day.

comment:4 hakre4 years ago

Related: #13909

comment:5 voyagerfan57614 years ago

  • Cc WordPress@… added

comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 3 hakre4 years ago

Replying to hakre:

Replying to nacin:

Why does IANA keep references to obsoleted tracks on their list?

Because those header codes were once defined and need to be blocked in the registry. So a code in the registry does not mean that it can be used only that it once had a meaning - even if for only a short period of time. That's comparable to the entries that are of no use (blocked).

comment:7 dd323 years ago

  • Owner has-patch deleted
  • Status changed from new to assigned

comment:8 hakre3 years ago

RFC 2616 specifies 306 as (unused).

According to that specs, it "is no longer used".

Related: #16888

comment:9 hakre3 years ago

Related: #16914

comment:10 hakre3 years ago

  • Keywords has-patch removed
  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from assigned to closed

I've reviewed the whole list and it looks like we take the IANA list as source for our list, so the issue raised with this ticket is really trivial.

As the IANA list has additionally updated since this ticket has been opened, I it as invalid and direct further attention to #16914.

Version 0, edited 3 years ago by hakre (next)

comment:11 ocean903 years ago

  • Milestone Future Release deleted
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.