Update HTTP status code constants wrt RFC 9110

[vytas7]

Update our HTTP status code constants (in falcon/status_codes.py) to conform to RFC 9110.

While we should be largely up-to-speed, there is at least one known inaccuracy wrt 413 Content Too Large (see RFC 9110, Section 15.5.14). We still use the older Payload Too Large.

[VibhinnS]

Hi. I saw the RFC spec sheet and there are a lot of HTTP codes that are removed, one has been reserved and one new code is added. Should I remove their references from status.rst file and falcon __init__ file as well?

I'm quite new to this so wanted to confirm. Thanks

[vytas7]

Hi @VibhinnS, by saying a lot of, could you give any specific examples?
Yes, it might be helpful to list these codes you are planning to change here before you start 🙂

Otherwise please see the abandoned #2279 for a checklist what needs to be done in this issue (bar the specific error codes).

[VibhinnS]

yeah sure

HTTP 207, 208, 226, 423, 424, 428, 429, 431, 451, 507, 508, 511 aren't mentioned in the RFC spec sheet (not sure if that means they're not standardized yet or won't be used at all as per 9110)
HTTP 418 is reserved now.

one new HTTP 421 has been added that's not in the current codebase

thanks for your help.

[vytas7]

Let me check. Just a quick comment, we should keep HTTP 418; it is not standardized and has never been (it has only been proposed as an April Fools joke), but it is included for fun in many libraries.

[vytas7]

You can also check HTTP response status codes on MDN, some of them are specific to WebDAV. We do support WebDAV methods and status codes. It is a valid question whether we should, but I don't think we want to remove them now.

[VibhinnS]

okay - got this. I'm keeping all the response codes untouched that're WebDAV specific.

[vytas7]

Let's not remove any status codes at all, they are probably there for a reason (be it another spec such as WebDAV, or pure fun 😈). Or if you find any that you propose to remove, explain here why.

Re HTTP 421 -- let's add it -- well spotted!

[VibhinnS]

aye aye captain

[vytas7]

Hi again @VibhinnS, just checking if you are still working on this issue, and do you need any help?

[aarcex3]

Hi, can I take this one if it's still open?

[vytas7]

Hi @aarcex3 !
Yes, go ahead! (We haven't heard from @VibhinnS since.)

[VibhinnS]

Hi @vytas7! Sorry for being inactive - had interviews and my grandma died 2 weeks ago, so I went off the grid for some time.
Do you mind if I stay in the community and work on another issue?

[CaselIT]

Sorry to hear...
Sure feel free to pick any issue you like, thanks!

[vytas7]

Ouch, sad to hear that @VibhinnS 🖤

And no worries at all, you don't owe us anything, come and contribute whenever you like 👍

[aarcex3]

@VibhinnS Im very sorry for your lost.

[aarcex3]

@vytas7 question, which link should I use as source? The one from MDN (it has more info) or the one from datatracker, since is the one on the issue description?

[vytas7]

@aarcex3 They shouldn't really contradict each other, MDN also includes other RFCs such as WebDAV (which we also include). I don't think we are looking to remove any codes either, let's add the missing ones and sync existing ones according to RFC 9110.