5 ms·
This is great! Despite how little the draft has changed over the last year, many communities seemed reluctant to work on an implementation until the RFC was pub
by akshayshah 4y ago
This is great! Despite how little the draft has changed over the last year, many communities seemed reluctant to work on an implementation until the RFC was published. Go definitely fell into this camp. Kudos to .NET for shipping HTTP/3 support in Kestrel already!
I have to say that I'm most excited for RFC 9110 (HTTP semantics), though :)
- taftster 4y agoFor the lazy: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110
- pbronez 4y agoThey killed the teapot! https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-418-unused https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-418-unused
- eyelidlessness 4y agoTime for an RFC for HTTP 42 I’m a bowl of petunias.
- techdragon 4y agoI’d prefer HTTP 442 “Oh no, not again.”
- JoshTriplett 4y agoThey at least reserve 418 so that it won't get used for anything else. But it looks like they don't list 451, defined in RFC 7725: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7725 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7725
- withinboredom 4y agoWe return 418 in a few places at work for endpoints that are only accessible to employees and you are not logged in. It’s a silly little Easter egg. Shame to see it going away.
- kamray23 4y agoPretty sure you're supposed to return a 403 in any case. It'd be a nicer easter egg when sending some nonsensical but carefully chosen arguments to said endpoints.
- withinboredom 4y agoHmm, yeah, it's a 403 unless you are passing correct arguments but not logged in (which you'd only know if you were an employee or had access to the documentation).