hi Mark!
Yes you're right, the status code should be encoded in close-frame, not
HTTP response.
Sorry for the wrong patch. ;-)

Best regards.


On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:52 PM Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hi folks!
> > The current response builder will reject status code less than 600:
> > -------------------------------code-------------------------
> >  ((not (and (non-negative-integer? code) (< code 600)))
> >   (bad-response "Bad code: ~a" code))
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > However, Websocket specific status code is larger than 1000.
>
> Section 4.2.2 paragraph 5 of RFC 6455 (the WebSocket RFC) makes it clear
> that the HTTP response should conform to RFC 2616, which specifies that
> the status code is a 3-digit integer less than 600.
>
> If I understand correctly, the larger status codes defined in section
> 7.4.1 of RFC 6455 are never used in HTTP response headers.  Rather, they
> are optionally used in WebSocket Close control frames to indicate the
> reason for closure.  See section 7.1.6 for more on that.
>
> The WebSocket protocol is quite distinct from the HTTP protocol.
> Although HTTP is used initially, after the server returns the HTTP
> response with status "101 Switching Protocols", a completely different
> protocol is used henceforth.
>
> So, I don't see anything in the RFCs to justify using the larger status
> codes in HTTP response status line.  Am I misunderstanding something?
>
>        Mark
>