4 ms·

For the lazy: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110

• pbronez 4y ago
  They 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 ago
    Time for an RFC for HTTP 42 I’m a bowl of petunias.
    • techdragon 4y ago
      I’d prefer HTTP 442 “Oh no, not again.”
  • JoshTriplett 4y ago
    They 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 ago
      We 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 ago
        Pretty 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 ago
          Hmm, 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).