Let’s get the AMAs kicked off on Lemmy, shall we.

Almost ten years ago now, I wrote RFC 7168, “Hypertext Coffeepot Control Protocol for Tea Efflux Appliances” which extends HTCPCP to handle tea brewing. Both Coffeepot Control Protocol and the tea-brewing extension are joke Internet Standards, and were released on Apr 1st (1998 and 2014). You may be familiar with HTTP error 418, “I’m a teapot”; this comes from the 1998 standard.

I’m giving a talk on the history of HTTP and HTCPCP at the WeAreDevelopers World Congress in Berlin later this month, and I need an FAQ section; AMA about the Internet and HTTP. Let’s try this out!

  • boonhet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have no questions, but I want to let people here know that there are two excellent websites related to this: http.cat and http.dog, for looking up HTTP status codes.

    For an example, if http.cat/418 doesn’t brighten your day, I don’t think there’s much that can.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re welcome! I try to share this with people whenever I can, hoping that it makes someone’s day better. It certainly gives me a lot of joy when I can respond to something with a relevant http cat, though the few people I do it to might be getting a little annoyed.

  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Congratulations on creating such a cool piece of Internet arcana!

    What do you think the silliest/most useless response status code is aside from 418?

    Were there any codes you wish had been included that haven’t been for some reason?

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I always rather enjoyed the double entendre of “420 Enhance Your Calm”, which was an unofficial response from Twitter’s original API before “429 Too Many Requests” was standardized.

      But I can’t think of any codes which aren’t already in there, that I’d use; there are a bunch that don’t see much use, like “410 Gone”, so the list could do with trimming down if anything.

  • Fenzik@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What’s the most impactful 418-related incident you’ve witnessed? I remember a few years ago npm went down and was returning 418 which spawned jokes and chaos across the web

      • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I’ve seen people refer to this as the “fuck off” of response codes, especially during that incident. How does that make you feel?

        • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not up to Mr Masinter or myself to police the usage of anything defined in the standard; if people feel like being assholes regarding the issuance of 418 errors, at least they’re being whimsical assholes.

          Could be worse; could be 200 with an error message inside, negating the entire point of error codes. I see that all the time.

          • ShunkW@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            When I was fixing up a legacy API app at an old job, I realized they did exactly that. I cleared it with my boss and started fixing up our error codes - pretty much all 401, 403, and 422. This blew up an integration with another app that literally threw exceptions on those codes rather than handling them. I died inside as it was my first software dev job. My first rollback of a change as well.

      • Maiznieks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know russian a bit and jargon for russian word “teapot” is also commonly used as “dummy” or “novice”. 418 for foreigners might have been on purpose there which brings Your April’s fool joke to a nation wide level :)

  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not a question, but we use 418 in production! We have a nginx router that routes pages based on its path to either old frontend or new frontend. I wanted some easy way to handle the routing (and to not repeat myself), so I set the new frontend as a handler for 418 error and then just return 418 in the nginx for any page I want on new UI. I chose 418 because the others could be actually used by the old frontend and it could get all weird.

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is actually a good use of 418 in production, and one I’ve come across before: if you need to perform some custom handling and throwing a HTTP error is the only sensible way to do it, 418 is always available.

      Unless your server really is a coffeepot, which is …unlikely.

  • binwiederhier@discuss.ntfy.sh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Thank you for contributing to the magic of the old school internet.

    My question: How does one get to write an RFC? Do you have to become part of a certain group, or just be known in certain circles, or do you just start writing and then submit it somewhere? If I had a great idea that I think should become an RFC, what is the process to make this a reality?

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For Apr 1st RFCs in particular, the process is that you write your document in conformance to the RFC Editor’s Style Guide and email it to the editor directly. If you have a not-a-joke standard that you’d like to be considered, that’ll go through as an Internet Draft first, and then there are stages of review.

      I haven’t been through the latter, but the editors are very approachable over email; I had no issues submitting my RFC for review and revision.

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My endorsement is at the bottom of that page, in fact. I wasn’t an active campaigner, but a word in favor was the least I could do.

      • Deebster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oops, RTFM. Well, thanks for fighting the good fight with the power of your reputation.

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are joke RFCs almost every year, so it’s not unprecedented to add to the standards. This year, one of the additions was a Death Flag to TCP, to indicate when a connection is about to terminate. The RFC Editors are very approachable when it comes to the Apr 1st RFCs: a “real” standard would need to be drafted by someone actually in the field, but the Apr 1st’s are open to public submissions as long as you’re willing to redraft/edit in accordance with the documentation standards.

      It’s worth noting that the Clacks header is an unofficial campaign, and hasn’t been standardised; the 'Pedia states that some 84,000 sites return X-Clacks-Overhead, and my own is one.

  • Erk@cdda.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I had been an advocate of getting just an ordinary person to do the first Lemmy ama but apparently we’ve got an absolute legend.

    Have you ever had a favourite reference to your joke come up?

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I did go to a conference once where they were handing out laptop stickers, and in the pack was a 418 teapot.

      Of course, a week after I stuck that to my machine, it died. Telling the laptop it was a teapot didn’t agree with it, I guess.

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s excellent out here. I was stuck on Reddit for the longest time, and this recent debacle has pushed me to explore the networks at the edge; this feels a lot more like the Internet of old. The analogy of email is apt, I think, with the accounts on multiple servers and the interplay between.

      • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You awaken my nostalgia, curiosity and sense of adventure when you say “explore the networks at the edge”. Are there any other networks than lemmy / mastodon that you would suggest checking out?

        • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Internet Relay Chat’s been one of those things that’s always felt out on the edge. I’ve been on EFnet since perhaps '03, and it’s a lot quieter than it was…

          With people moving en masse away from the centralized sites and their Firebase-implemented chats, we may see a pick up in traffic on the IRC networks, which would be good to see.

          • Revan343@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are some interesting channels on EFnet? I basically grew up on Foonetic, but moved to Slashnet when #xkcd did. I don’t pay near as much attention to IRC as I used to, but would like to change that

            • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I haven’t been exploring in the depths of EFnet in …many years. I’m confined to the programming-related channels I found in the Way Back When, nowadays: at the moment, #c is probably the most active and it’s almost all old-timers.

  • christophski@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What code should be used if we are expecting something to be a teapot? In this scenario it seems a 4XX is inappropriate because there is no error

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’re writing a TEA-compliant client, you’d send the BREW request and expect a 300 Multiple Options back, whereby the server will tell you which teabags are installed. You’re correct that there’ll be no error, unless all the bag stocks are out server-side.

      That’d return 503 Service Unavailable, of course.

  • fidodo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We’re there any early internet standards you were super bullish on at the time that didn’t get picked up? In retrospect, if it had been adopted do you think it would have had the impact you were hoping for

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a tough one: most standards are codified as such because they’re already seeing wide use. The major example of one that’s been worked the other way around is IPv6: it’s been a standard for a very long time, and still doesn’t seem to be seeing adoption.

      Of course, I wouldn’t say I was bullish on IPv6. 32 bits is enough for anyone, right.

  • ColdPints@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s the process for submitting RFCs? And how do they pick which joke RFC they’ll publish? That’s a meeting I’d like to be a fly on the wall of

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For “real” RFCs that aren’t Apr 1st jokes, there’s an independent submissions track for the public to write Internet-Drafts and then submit them into the review process.

      With the joke RFCs, they get emailed straight to the editor at least two weeks beforehand. I’m not privy to the selection meeting, but I expect it’s fun.

  • Clav64@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I loved sharing this with my senior who hadn’t seen it before, and it gave our small team a Ggod chuckle one afternoon. Thanks for your creation.

    With the absence of a crystal ball, but with excellent inner knowledge, what future standards could you see being implemented in the next 10 years for internet?

    • Two9A@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As it turns out, one of the Apr 1st RFCs for this year covers AI Sarcasm Detection, but I can see more serious protocols arising for the transfer of AI model data and/or training procedures in the coming years.

      I’d also hope ActivityPub reaches Internet Standard level, though it may fall outside the IETF’s scope of operations.