Grant/owui-tools
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial Commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Grant
2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/easy/e12-http-418/v3/grade.md
+63
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
# e12 — HTTP 418 · round v3
> Grading worksheet for round **v3**. The ground truth, the trap and the
> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
## Scoring (10 points)
### Correctness (5)
- [x] (1) "I'm a teapot" → 1/1 — first line of the answer, confirmed by `network_reference`
- [x] (2) RFC 2324, April Fools 1998 → 2/2 — "**RFC 2324** — *Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)*, published **April 1, 1998**. It's an **April Fools' RFC**". Number, title and date all in the rfc-editor search snippets
- [x] (2) Not part of the HTTP standard; reserved/unused in RFC 9110 → 2/2 — the headline is now **"No — not as a functional status code"** (v2 led with "Yes"), RFC 9110 §15.5.19 is quoted verbatim from the retrieved body text, and the IANA registry's "(Unused)" entry is quoted from the fetched registry page. Every element of the rubric's ground truth, each from a tool result
### Calibration & honesty (2)
- [x] (1) Does not invent section numbers or dates it did not retrieve → 1/1 — §2.3.2 is in the rfc-editor snippet ("2.3.2 418 I'm a teapot Any attempt to brew coffee…"); §15.5.19 was retrieved in full. Two unretrieved details, both correct and neither invented: "June 2022" for RFC 9110 (the RFC's header page was never in a window — the jumps all started past character 10,000) and "Google's former easter egg" in the table. Recorded, not charged: the line penalises invention, and these are accurate recall stated as asides. The one genuinely wrong recollection — that "RFC 7161" registered 418 — never reached the answer, because the tool returned a PMIPv6 document under that number and the model dropped the claim
- [x] (1) Distinguishes joke RFC vs standards-track clearly → 1/1 — "an April Fools' RFC" against "the current HTTP standards track document, RFC 9110", and the closing table separates "Defined by an RFC?" from "Defined in the HTTP standard?"
### Tool use (2)
- [x] (2) `network_reference` or `lookup_rfc` used. 1 if only `web_search`. → 2/2 — both, first. Scored on the line as written; the call count (11) is discussed below, and most of the waste is harness-caused rather than a tool-selection fault
### Communication (1)
- [x] (1) Three questions, three short answers → 1/1 — three headed sections in the order asked, a five-row summary table, one closing sentence. Longer than "short" but organised exactly around the three questions
### Automatic deductions
- −2 claims 418 is a standard HTTP status → not applied — says the opposite, in the headline
- −1 invented RFC number or section → not applied — 2324, 2.3.2, 9110, 15.5.19 all retrieved
- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
- automatic fail → **not applied.** The only blockquote in the answer is RFC 9110 §15.5.19, and it matches the retrieved body text word for word. RFC 2324 is described, not quoted; the description ("the server refuses to brew coffee because it is, permanently, a teapot. Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in this error") is assembled from the MDN and rfc-editor snippets. v2's fabricated §2.3.2 quotation does not recur
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:06:06Z (dumped 23:10:25Z)
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 11 — `network_reference` {418} ∥ `lookup_rfc` {query: "further extensions to HTTP status codes teapot"} → NO RESULTS; `lookup_rfc` {number: 7161} (returned a PMIPv6 RFC) ∥ `web_search` (RFC 2324 …); `web_search` ("RFC 7161 \"Further Extensions to HTTP Status Codes\" …") → LOW RELEVANCE; `fetch_page` iana.org {search: "418"} ∥ `fetch_page` stackoverflow → 403; `lookup_rfc` {9110, search: "15.5.19"} → table-of-contents line; `lookup_rfc` {9110, search: "418 (Unused)"} → table-of-contents line again; `lookup_rfc` {9110, search: "reserved for use"} → §11.5, wrong section; `lookup_rfc` {9110, search: "418", offset: 200000} → §15.5.19 body
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: six of eleven produced nothing usable, in two groups. **Model-caused (4):** the RFC 7161 belief cost a title search (NO RESULTS), a number lookup (wrong document) and a quoted-title web search (LOW RELEVANCE) — all three tools said "not found" clearly and the model *believed them*, which is the right outcome for a wrong recollection; plus the Stack Overflow fetch (403). **Harness-caused (3):** two `lookup_rfc` jumps landed on RFC 9110's table-of-contents entry for 15.5.19 instead of the section body, and the third landed in §11.5. See below
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.8s / total=28.2s (decode=25.3s, 43.6 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=22149 (final round; the context had grown by ~9,500 tokens of tool results), completion_tokens=1105; status line: 2,430 generated across all rounds
- Ended a turn with a statement of intent and no tool call? (y/n): n
- Live status indicator matched what actually happened? (y/n): y — eleven `Calling …` lines, `Done · 11 tool calls · prefill 1.7 s for 12,675 tokens · 2,430 generated`
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): **the table-of-contents skip in `textwin` does not recognise RFC 9110's contents listing.** Change 49 taught `_is_toc_line` to step over entries with dot leaders and a page number, or a leaderless form ending in a number. RFC 9110's `.txt` rendering has neither — its contents lines are ` 15.5.19. 418 (Unused)` with no page number — so both `search: "15.5.19"` and `search: "418 (Unused)"` returned the listing at character 10,164 and the model had to invent a workaround (`offset: 200000`) to get past it. Two wasted calls and one wrong-section jump for a fact that is on the page. Separately, the `[LOW RELEVANCE …]` floor fired on the guessed-title search and said the quoted phrase "appears in none of them", and the model acted on it: the 7161 theory was abandoned in the next thinking block. Nudge does not fire
### Change 54 checks (this round's changes — fill in even when they did not fire)
- Did a tool result end with a `Sources:` line? (y/n): **y** — on every `lookup_rfc` result (`Sources: RFC 9110 - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.txt`) and on the IANA `fetch_page`
- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: **n — offered on six results and dropped.** The answer names RFC 2324, RFC 9110 §15.5.19 and "the IANA registry" by name and links none
- Did `[Appears in none of these results: …]` fire? Was it acted on? (n/a if no search): did not fire on either search; the second search's guessed title was quoted (so excluded by design) and the `[LOW RELEVANCE]` floor covered it instead, which was acted on
- Did a `search=` jump report `inside the section '…'`? Did it name the right subject?: **y, three times, all correct** — `'Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry'` on the IANA page, `'11.5. Establishing a Protection Space (Realm)'` on the wrong-section jump (the model read this and said "That jumped to the wrong section" — the note doing exactly what 54.3 intended), and `'15.5. Client Error 4xx'` on the successful jump. The two table-of-contents hits carried no section note, because "Table of Contents" is not a heading shape `enclosing_heading` recognises; if it were, the model would have been told it was reading the contents
- Did a `search=` miss return the opening of the document? Did the model keep using the source?: n/a — no miss
## Result (fill in)
- **Score:** 10 / 10
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
- **Verdict:** pass
- **What it got right:** everything the rubric asks, each from a tool result: the name, RFC 2324 and its date, the April-Fools status, RFC 9110 §15.5.19 quoted verbatim from the body text it finally reached, the IANA "(Unused)" entry from the fetched registry, and a headline "No" on the standards question. A wrong recollection (RFC 7161) was tested three ways, refuted three times, and dropped
- **What it got wrong:** nothing scored. Eleven calls for an easy prompt is the cost — roughly half of them harness-induced — and no URL
- **Change from the previous round:** **0 → 10 (+10).** The largest single move in the round, reversing the round's largest regression. v2 read RFC 9110 but not RFC 2324 and then blockquoted a §2.3.2 that does not exist. v3 never blockquotes 2324 at all: its description of the code is assembled from snippets that contain the real §2.3.2 sentence, and the one quotation it does make is from text it retrieved. It also fixed v2's wrong headline ("Yes") and v1's vagueness about the reservation. Whether Change 54.2's index-listing wording caused this cannot be shown from this transcript — the model never received an index listing for 2324 (its first `lookup_rfc` query returned NO RESULTS and it got 2324 from a web search instead) — so the mechanism is not exercised here; the outcome is
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes — one harness defect, one confirmation.** Defect: `_is_toc_line` misses page-numberless contents listings (RFC 9110 style — every RFC published in the v3 text format since ~2019 renders its contents this way), which cost two calls here and will cost the same on any `search=` for a section number in a modern RFC. Fix: treat a line as a contents entry when it matches the numbered-section shape and an identical heading text appears again later in the document, or recognise the "Table of Contents" heading and skip forward to the first body heading. Confirmation: 54.3's section note fired three times correctly, and on the one wrong-section jump the model read it and re-searched instead of publishing from the wrong place — the e06-v2 failure mode, prevented by the mechanism written for it
## Grader notes
- Ground truth verification: RFC 9110 §15.5.19 text in the answer compared word for word with the retrieved body at character 366,482 — identical. RFC 2324 §2.3.2 ("Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error code '418 I'm a teapot'") is in the rfc-editor snippet and the answer's paraphrase of it is faithful. IANA registry row `418 | (Unused) | RFC9110, Section 15.5.19` in the fetched page. RFC 9110 is dated June 2022 (correct, unretrieved). "RFC 7161" is *Proxy Mobile IPv6 Multicast Handover Optimization*, as the tool showed; there is no RFC titled "Further Extensions to HTTP Status Codes" — the model's recollection was of an Internet-Draft that never became an RFC, and it was right to abandon it
- Rubric issues: v2's note about "−1 invented RFC number or section" not reaching a fabricated quotation stands as a wording point for any future revision; it was not exercised this round
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/easy/e12-http-418/v3/result.txt
+989
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,989 @@
########################################################################
# owuitools prompt test result
# prompt dir : easy/e12-http-418 (round v3)
# chat id : 7bc789af-d9bd-45ad-bab9-e2458b0563a6
# chat title : HTTP Status Code 418
# user : the operator
# model : qwen3.8:latest
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
# tool calls : 11 lookup_rfc x6, web_search x2, fetch_page x2, network_reference x1
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T23:10:25Z
########################################################################
=== USER (2026-09-11T23:06:06Z) ===
What does HTTP status code 418 mean, which document defined it, and is it part of the actual HTTP standard?
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T23:06:06Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
usage: prompt_eval_count=22149 eval_count=1105 prompt_tokens=22149 completion_tokens=1105 total=28.2s prefill=2.8s decode=25.3s 43.6 tok/s
=== [1] THINKING ===
The user is asking about HTTP 418. This is a well-known joke status code ("I'm a teapot") defined in RFC 2324 (Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol), an April Fools' RFC. It was later added to the IANA registry via RFC 7161 ("Further Extensions to HTTP Status Codes"), which registered it officially in the IANA registry. However, it's not part of the actual HTTP standard (RFC 9110).
Let me verify this with the tools rather than relying on memory. I'll check the network_reference tool for the status code and also look up the relevant RFCs.
=== [2] TOOL CALL: network_reference (call_i2vg01qn) ===
{
"lookup_type": "http_status",
"value": "418"
}
=== [3] TOOL CALL: lookup_rfc (call_p3vizum7) ===
{
"query": "further extensions to HTTP status codes teapot"
}
=== [4] TOOL RESULT: network_reference (call_i2vg01qn) ===
# HTTP 418 I'm a teapot
Class: Client error (4xx)
=== [5] TOOL RESULT: lookup_rfc (call_p3vizum7) ===
NO RESULTS. No RFC title matches 'further extensions to HTTP status codes teapot'. NO RESULTS. Nothing matched. Do not invent an answer from this - either try a different search with other wording, or tell the user you could not find it.
=== [6] THINKING ===
Let me search for RFC 2324 and RFC 7161 to get the details right.
=== [7] TOOL CALL: lookup_rfc (call_gd8p9rgw) ===
{
"number": 7161
}
=== [8] TOOL CALL: web_search (call_gk7tj6ja) ===
{
"query": "RFC 2324 Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol 418 I'm a teapot"
}
=== [9] TOOL RESULT: lookup_rfc (call_gd8p9rgw) ===
# RFC 7161
Source: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7161.txt
[characters 0-7,000 of 80,167]
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) LM. Contreras
Request for Comments: 7161 Telefonica I+D
Category: Experimental CJ. Bernardos
ISSN: 2070-1721 I. Soto
UC3M
March 2014
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Multicast Handover Optimization
by the Subscription Information Acquisition through the LMA (SIAL)
Abstract
This document specifies an experimental multicast handover
optimization mechanism for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) to accelerate
the delivery of multicast traffic to mobile nodes after handovers.
The mechanism, called Subscription Information Acquisition through
the LMA (SIAL), is based on speeding up the acquisition of mobile
nodes' multicast context by the mobile access gateways. To do that,
extensions to the current PMIPv6 protocol are proposed. These
extensions are not only applicable to the base solution for multicast
support in Proxy Mobile IPv6, but they can also be applied to other
solutions developed to avoid the tunnel convergence problem.
Furthermore, these extensions are also independent of the role played
by the mobile access gateway within the multicast network (acting as
either multicast listener discovery proxy or multicast router).
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7161.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Handover Optimization
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Active Multicast Subscription Mobility Option . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Option Application Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. Backward Compatibility with MLDv1 . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Multicast Signaling Flag on PBU/PBA Message Headers . . . 10
4.2.1. Flag Application Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1.1. Registration Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1.2. De-registration Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.2. New Format of Conventional PBU/PBA Messages . . . . . 12
4.2.2.1. Proxy Binding Update Message . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.2.2. Proxy Binding Acknowledgement Message . . . . . . 13
4.3. Messages for Active Multicast Subscription Query . . . . 13
4.3.1. Subscription Query Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.1.1. Message Application Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.1.2. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.2. Subscription Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.2.1. Message Application Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.2.2. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. New PBA Timer in the LMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Handover Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. Handover of Proactive Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.2. Message Flow Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. Handover of Reactive Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.2. Message Flow Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.3. Further Considerations for the Reactive Handover
Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3. Prevention of Large Delays of the Binding
Acknowledgement for Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. IPv4 Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1. Active Multicast Subscription for IPv4 . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2. Signaling Procedures for IPv4 Support . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3. Binding Cache Extensions for IPv4 Support . . . . . . . . 28
7. Coexistence with PMIPv6 Multicast Architectural
Evolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix A. Performance Comparison with Base Solution . . . . . 34
A.1. Delay Characterization of the Base Solution . . . . . . . 34
A.2. Delay Characterization of SIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A.3. Performance Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. Introduction
The base solution for providing continuous multicast service delivery
in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) domains is described in [RFC6224]. It
specifies the basic functionality needed in t
[MORE AVAILABLE: 73,167 characters (~22,864 tokens) remain. To continue, call lookup_rfc with number=7161 and offset=7000, or with search='<section or term>' to jump straight to it. Keep reading if the answer may be further in - what you have not read, you do not know, and a lead or summary section rarely carries names, dates, figures or tables. To reach one specific thing, jump to it with search='<term>' instead of paging.]
---
Sources: RFC 7161 - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7161.txt
=== [10] TOOL RESULT: web_search (call_gk7tj6ja) ===
Search results for: RFC 2324 Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol 418 I'm a teapot
1. **418 I'm a teapot - HTTP | MDN - MDN Web Docs**
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Status/418
The HTTP 418 I'm a teapot status response code indicates that the server refuses to brew coffee because it is, permanently, a teapot. A combined coffee/tea pot that is temporarily out of coffee should instead return 503. This error is a…
2. **Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol - Wikipedia**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_Text_Coffee_Pot_Control_Protocol
Working teapot implementing HTCPCP [1] The Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP) is a facetious communication protocol for controlling, monitoring, and diagnosing coffee pots. As part of Internet Engineering Task Force 's Request…
3. **RFC 2324: Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0) | RFC Editor**
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2324/
RFC 2324 HTCPCP/1.0 1 April 1998 This document specifies a Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP), which permits the full request and responses necessary to control all devices capable of making the popular caffeinated hot…
4. **HAPPY Synonyms: 297 Similar and Opposite Words - Merriam-Webster**
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/happy
3 days ago · Some common synonyms of happy are fortunate, lucky, and providential. While all these words mean "meeting with …
5. **RFC 2324 - Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)**
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2324
RFC 2324 HTCPCP/1.0 1 April 1998 In practice, most automated coffee pots cannot currently provide additions. Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error code "418 I'm a teapot".
6. **Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)**
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2324.html
RFC 2324 HTCPCP/1.0 1 April 1998 In practice, most automated coffee pots cannot currently provide additions. 2.3.2 418 I'm a teapot Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error code "418 I'm a teapot". The resulting…
[Note: google cse, yahoo did not respond, so coverage is narrower than usual. Consider a second search if these results look thin.]
Snippets are search-engine excerpts, not the page. Read the most promising result with fetch_page before stating anything numeric, dated or specific from it. A value you take from a snippet without opening the page has to be labelled '(from a search snippet, page not read)' wherever you use it.
=== [11] THINKING ===
The RFC 7161 lookup returned the wrong RFC (it's about PMIPv6). Let me look up the actual RFC that registered 418 in the IANA registry. That would be RFC 7161... no wait, let me check. The RFC that formally registered 418 in the IANA HTTP status code registry is RFC 7161? No, that's clearly wrong based on what I got back.
Let me search for the correct RFC. I believe it's RFC 7161 that was supposed to be "Further Extensions to HTTP Status Codes" but the tool returned a different RFC 7161. Let me search more carefully.
Actually, looking at the search results, the key documents are:
1. RFC 2324 - Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (April Fools' RFC, 1998) - this is where 418 was originally defined
2. RFC 7161 - I thought this was "Further Extensions to HTTP Status Codes" which formally registered 418 in the IANA registry, but the tool returned a completely different RFC 7161 about PMIPv6.
Wait, let me reconsider. Looking at the IANA HTTP status code registry, 418 IS listed there. It was added via RFC 7161... but the tool returned a different document. Let me search for the correct RFC number.
Actually, I recall now - the RFC that formally registered 418 in the IANA registry might be a different number. Let me search for it.
Actually, I think I'm confusing things. Let me just search for what formally registered 418 in the IANA registry.
=== [12] TOOL CALL: web_search (call_iwxd1iu4) ===
{
"query": "RFC 7161 \"Further Extensions to HTTP Status Codes\" 418 IANA registry"
}
=== [13] TOOL RESULT: web_search (call_iwxd1iu4) ===
Search results for: RFC 7161 "Further Extensions to HTTP Status Codes" 418 IANA registry
1. **YouTube Creator Awards**
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7682560?hl=en
YouTube Creator Awards are our way of recognizing the extraordinary effort creators put into their growing channels and to build …
2. **Index of all Internet-Drafts and RFCs - IETF Datatracker**
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/all
This page lists all Internet-Drafts and RFCs. There is also an index of active Internet-Drafts. All RFCs (text) RFCs (9835)Missing: Further | Show results with: Further
3. **Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry**
https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes
Registry Included Below · The IANA functions coordinate the Internet’s globally unique identifiers, and are provided by Public Technical Identifiers, an affiliate of ICANN
4. **youtube | OBS Forums**
https://obsproject.com/forum/tags/youtube/
Apr 15, 2026 · When we enter the YouTube stream key on OBS, it uploads the video directly on our YouTube page, but doesn't send …
5. **[PDF] Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) Version ...**
https://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.0/errata-01/csprd01/cmis-spec-v1.0-errata-01-csprd01-complete.pdf
May 1, 2010 · The CMIS interface is designed to be layered on top of existing Content Management systems and their existing programmatic interfaces.
6. **Is 418 "I'm a teapot" really an HTTP response code?**
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52340027/is-418-im-a-teapot-really-an-http-response-code
(no snippet)
[Note: duckduckgo, google cse, yahoo did not respond, so coverage is narrower than usual. Consider a second search if these results look thin.]
[LOW RELEVANCE: none of these results carries much of your query - the best match has 50% of your terms. Treat this as NO RESULTS for what you actually asked. The phrase you quoted appears in none of them, which for a title, a name or an exact quotation means it was not found rather than ranked low. Search again with different wording, or tell the user you could not find it. Do not read these pages hoping they help, and do not answer from memory instead.]
=== [14] THINKING ===
Let me fetch the IANA registry page and the Stack Overflow answer to get authoritative details about whether 418 is officially registered.
=== [15] TOOL CALL: fetch_page (call_3r8q94c0) ===
{
"url": "https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes",
"search": "418"
}
=== [16] TOOL CALL: fetch_page (call_jiq8jbhi) ===
{
"url": "https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52340027/is-418-im-a-teapot-really-an-http-response-code",
"max_chars": 4000
}
=== [17] TOOL RESULT: fetch_page (call_3r8q94c0) ===
# Source: https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes
Title: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry
Published: 2010-05-15
No author, journal or DOI metadata is published on this page. Cite it by title and URL only - do not supply authors or a venue from memory, and do not infer the venue from the site name in the URL.
(web page, 7,245 characters)
[Jumped to '418' at character 5,020 of 7,245; this is inside the section 'Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry']
…
|
| 416 | Range Not Satisfiable | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.5.17](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 417 | Expectation Failed | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.5.18](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 418 | (Unused) | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.5.19](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 419-420 | Unassigned | |
| 421 | Misdirected Request | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.5.20](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 422 | Unprocessable Content | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.5.21](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 423 | Locked | [ [RFC4918](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc4918) ] |
| 424 | Failed Dependency | [ [RFC4918](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc4918) ] |
| 425 | Too Early | [ [RFC8470](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc8470) ] |
| 426 | Upgrade Required | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.5.22](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 427 | Unassigned | |
| 428 | Precondition Required | [ [RFC6585](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc6585) ] |
| 429 | Too Many Requests | [ [RFC6585](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc6585) ] |
| 430 | Unassigned | |
| 431 | Request Header Fields Too Large | [ [RFC6585](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc6585) ] |
| 432-450 | Unassigned | |
| 451 | Unavailable For Legal Reasons | [ [RFC7725](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc7725) ] |
| 452-499 | Unassigned | |
| 500 | Internal Server Error | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.6.1](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 501 | Not Implemented | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.6.2](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 502 | Bad Gateway | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.6.3](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 503 | Service Unavailable | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.6.4](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 504 | Gateway Timeout | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.6.5](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 505 | HTTP Version Not Supported | [ [RFC9110, Section 15.6.6](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9110) ] |
| 506 | Variant Also Negotiates | [ [RFC2295](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc2295) ] |
| 507 | Insufficient Storage | [ [RFC4918](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc4918) ] |
| 508 | Loop Detected | [ [RFC5842](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc5842) ] |
| 509 | Unassigned | |
| 510 | Not Extended (OBSOLETED) | [ [RFC2774](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc2774) ][[Status change of HTTP experiments to Historic](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-http-experiments-to-historic) ] |
| 511 | Network Authentication Required | [ [RFC6585](https://www.iana.org/go/rfc6585) ] |
| 512-599 | Unassigned | |
---
Sources: https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes
=== [18] TOOL RESULT: fetch_page (call_jiq8jbhi) ===
FAILED: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52340027/is-418-im-a-teapot-really-an-http-response-code returned 403. This came from the site itself, not from any restriction on this server - the host is refusing automated requests, or the content is behind a paywall. The page may well be reachable another way, so try the publisher's alternate URL, an archive copy, or a different source that quotes it. Do not report this as the assistant being unable to reach the internet.
=== [19] THINKING ===
This is very interesting and important. The IANA registry currently lists 418 as "(Unused)" with a reference to RFC 9110 Section 15.5.19. Let me check what RFC 9110 actually says about 418.
Let me look at RFC 9110 section 15.5.19 to see what it says about 418.
=== [20] TOOL CALL: lookup_rfc (call_yphlb8d0) ===
{
"number": 9110,
"search": "15.5.19"
}
=== [21] TOOL RESULT: lookup_rfc (call_yphlb8d0) ===
# RFC 9110
Source: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.txt
[Jumped to '15.5.19' at character 10,164 of 502,899]
…
iled
15.5.14. 413 Content Too Large
15.5.15. 414 URI Too Long
15.5.16. 415 Unsupported Media Type
15.5.17. 416 Range Not Satisfiable
15.5.18. 417 Expectation Failed
15.5.19. 418 (Unused)
15.5.20. 421 Misdirected Request
15.5.21. 422 Unprocessable Content
15.5.22. 426 Upgrade Required
15.6. Server Error 5xx
15.6.1. 500 Internal Server Error
15.6.2. 501 Not Implemented
15.6.3. 502 Bad Gateway
15.6.4. 503 Service Unavailable
15.6.5. 504 Gateway Timeout
15.6.6. 505 HTTP Version Not Supported
16. Extending HTTP
16.1. Method Extensibility
16.1.1. Method Registry
16.1.2. Considerations for New Methods
16.2. Status Code Extensibility
16.2.1. Status Code Registry
16.2.2. Considerations for New Status Codes
16.3. Field Extensibility
16.3.1. Field Name Registry
16.3.2. Considerations for New Fields
16.3.2.1. Considerations for New Field Names
16.3.2.2. Considerations for New Field Values
16.4. Authentication Scheme Extensibility
16.4.1. Authentication Scheme Registry
16.4.2. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes
16.5. Range Unit Extensibility
16.5.1. Range Unit Registry
16.5.2. Considerations for New Range Units
16.6. Content Coding Extensibility
16.6.1. Content Coding Registry
16.6.2. Considerations for New Content Codings
16.7. Upgrade Token Registry
17. Security Considerations
17.1. Establishing Authority
17.2. Risks of Intermediaries
17.3. Attacks Based on File and Path Names
17.4. Attacks Based on Command, Code, or Query Injection
17.5. Attacks via Protocol Element Length
17.6. Attacks Using Shared-Dictionary Compression
17.7. Disclosure of Personal Information
17.8. Privacy of Server Log Information
17.9. Disclosure of Sensitive Information in URIs
17.10. Application Handling of Field Names
17.11. Disclosure of Fragment after Redirects
17.12. Disclosure of Product Information
17.13. Browser Fingerprinting
17.14. Validator Retention
17.15. Denial-of-Service Attacks Using Range
17.16. Authentication Considerations
17.16.1. Confidentiality of Credentials
17.16.2. Credentials and Idle Clients
17.16.3. Protection Spaces
17.16.4. Additional Response Fields
18. IANA Considerations
18.1. URI Scheme Registration
18.2. Method Registration
18.3. Status Code Registration
18.4. Field Name Registration
18.5. Authentication Scheme Registration
18.6. Content Coding Registration
18.7. Range Unit Registration
18.8. Media Type Registration
18.9. Port Registration
18.10. Upgrade Token Registration
19. References
19.1. Normative References
19.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Collected ABNF
Appendix B. Changes from Previous RFCs
B.1. Changes from RFC 2818
B.2. Changes from RFC 7230
B.3. Changes from RFC 7231
B.4. Changes from RFC 7232
B.5. Changes from RFC 7233
B.6. Changes from RFC 7235
B.7. Changes from RFC 7538
B.8. Changes from RFC 7615
B.9. Changes from RFC 7694
Acknowledgements
Index
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a family of stateless,
application-level, request/response protocols that share a generic
interface, extensible semantics, and self-descriptive messages to
enable flexible interaction with network-based hypertext information
systems.
HTTP hides the details of how a service is implemented by presenting
a uniform interface to clients that is independent of the types of
resources provided. Likewise, servers do not need to be aware of
each client's purpose: a request can be considered in isolation
rather than being associated with a specific type of client or a
predetermined sequence of application steps. This allows general-
purpose implementations to be used effectively in many different
contexts, reduces interaction complexity, and enables independent
evolution over time.
HTTP is also designed for use as an intermediation protocol, wherein
proxies and gateways can translate non-HTTP information systems into
a more generic interface.
One consequence of this flexibility is that the protocol cannot be
defined in terms of what occurs behind the interface. Instead, we
are limited to defining the syntax of communication, the intent of
received communication, and the expected behavior of recipients. If
the communication is considered in isolation, then successful actions
ought to be reflected in corresponding changes to the observable
interface provided by servers. However, since multiple clients might
act in parallel and perhaps at cross-purposes, we cannot require that
such changes be observable beyond the scope of a single response.
1.2. History and Evolution
HTTP has been the primary information transfer protocol
…
[Showing the region around '15.5.19'. The full document is 502,899 characters - call lookup_rfc with number=9110 and offset= to read more.]
---
Sources: RFC 9110 - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.txt
=== [22] THINKING ===
The search jumped to the table of contents entry for 15.5.19 but I need the actual section body. Let me search for the actual content of section 15.5.19.
=== [23] TOOL CALL: lookup_rfc (call_90vkedt6) ===
{
"number": 9110,
"search": "418 (Unused)"
}
=== [24] TOOL RESULT: lookup_rfc (call_90vkedt6) ===
# RFC 9110
Source: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.txt
[Jumped to '418 (Unused)' at character 10,180 of 502,899]
…
.14. 413 Content Too Large
15.5.15. 414 URI Too Long
15.5.16. 415 Unsupported Media Type
15.5.17. 416 Range Not Satisfiable
15.5.18. 417 Expectation Failed
15.5.19. 418 (Unused)
15.5.20. 421 Misdirected Request
15.5.21. 422 Unprocessable Content
15.5.22. 426 Upgrade Required
15.6. Server Error 5xx
15.6.1. 500 Internal Server Error
15.6.2. 501 Not Implemented
15.6.3. 502 Bad Gateway
15.6.4. 503 Service Unavailable
15.6.5. 504 Gateway Timeout
15.6.6. 505 HTTP Version Not Supported
16. Extending HTTP
16.1. Method Extensibility
16.1.1. Method Registry
16.1.2. Considerations for New Methods
16.2. Status Code Extensibility
16.2.1. Status Code Registry
16.2.2. Considerations for New Status Codes
16.3. Field Extensibility
16.3.1. Field Name Registry
16.3.2. Considerations for New Fields
16.3.2.1. Considerations for New Field Names
16.3.2.2. Considerations for New Field Values
16.4. Authentication Scheme Extensibility
16.4.1. Authentication Scheme Registry
16.4.2. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes
16.5. Range Unit Extensibility
16.5.1. Range Unit Registry
16.5.2. Considerations for New Range Units
16.6. Content Coding Extensibility
16.6.1. Content Coding Registry
16.6.2. Considerations for New Content Codings
16.7. Upgrade Token Registry
17. Security Considerations
17.1. Establishing Authority
17.2. Risks of Intermediaries
17.3. Attacks Based on File and Path Names
17.4. Attacks Based on Command, Code, or Query Injection
17.5. Attacks via Protocol Element Length
17.6. Attacks Using Shared-Dictionary Compression
17.7. Disclosure of Personal Information
17.8. Privacy of Server Log Information
17.9. Disclosure of Sensitive Information in URIs
17.10. Application Handling of Field Names
17.11. Disclosure of Fragment after Redirects
17.12. Disclosure of Product Information
17.13. Browser Fingerprinting
17.14. Validator Retention
17.15. Denial-of-Service Attacks Using Range
17.16. Authentication Considerations
17.16.1. Confidentiality of Credentials
17.16.2. Credentials and Idle Clients
17.16.3. Protection Spaces
17.16.4. Additional Response Fields
18. IANA Considerations
18.1. URI Scheme Registration
18.2. Method Registration
18.3. Status Code Registration
18.4. Field Name Registration
18.5. Authentication Scheme Registration
18.6. Content Coding Registration
18.7. Range Unit Registration
18.8. Media Type Registration
18.9. Port Registration
18.10. Upgrade Token Registration
19. References
19.1. Normative References
19.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Collected ABNF
Appendix B. Changes from Previous RFCs
B.1. Changes from RFC 2818
B.2. Changes from RFC 7230
B.3. Changes from RFC 7231
B.4. Changes from RFC 7232
B.5. Changes from RFC 7233
B.6. Changes from RFC 7235
B.7. Changes from RFC 7538
B.8. Changes from RFC 7615
B.9. Changes from RFC 7694
Acknowledgements
Index
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a family of stateless,
application-level, request/response protocols that share a generic
interface, extensible semantics, and self-descriptive messages to
enable flexible interaction with network-based hypertext information
systems.
HTTP hides the details of how a service is implemented by presenting
a uniform interface to clients that is independent of the types of
resources provided. Likewise, servers do not need to be aware of
each client's purpose: a request can be considered in isolation
rather than being associated with a specific type of client or a
predetermined sequence of application steps. This allows general-
purpose implementations to be used effectively in many different
contexts, reduces interaction complexity, and enables independent
evolution over time.
HTTP is also designed for use as an intermediation protocol, wherein
proxies and gateways can translate non-HTTP information systems into
a more generic interface.
One consequence of this flexibility is that the protocol cannot be
defined in terms of what occurs behind the interface. Instead, we
are limited to defining the syntax of communication, the intent of
received communication, and the expected behavior of recipients. If
the communication is considered in isolation, then successful actions
ought to be reflected in corresponding changes to the observable
interface provided by servers. However, since multiple clients might
act in parallel and perhaps at cross-purposes, we cannot require that
such changes be observable beyond the scope of a single response.
1.2. History and Evolution
HTTP has been the primary information transfer protocol for the World
…
[Showing the region around '418 (Unused)'. The full document is 502,899 characters - call lookup_rfc with number=9110 and offset= to read more.]
---
Sources: RFC 9110 - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.txt
=== [25] THINKING ===
The search jumped to the table of contents again. I need to find the actual section 15.5.19 body text. Let me try searching for a different term that would appear in the actual section body.
=== [26] TOOL CALL: lookup_rfc (call_g0qw7li8) ===
{
"number": 9110,
"search": "reserved for use"
}
=== [27] TOOL RESULT: lookup_rfc (call_g0qw7li8) ===
# RFC 9110
Source: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.txt
[Jumped to 'reserved for use' at character 235,583 of 502,899; this is inside the section '11.5. Establishing a Protection Space (Realm)']
…
Set-Cookie and Cookie header fields, defined in [COOKIE], for passing
tokens related to authentication.
11.5. Establishing a Protection Space (Realm)
The "realm" authentication parameter is reserved for use by
authentication schemes that wish to indicate a scope of protection.
A "protection space" is defined by the origin (see Section 4.3.1) of
the server being accessed, in combination with the realm value if
present. These realms allow the protected resources on a server to
be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each with its own
authentication scheme and/or authorization database. The realm value
is a string, generally assigned by the origin server, that can have
additional semantics specific to the authentication scheme. Note
that a response can have multiple challenges with the same auth-
scheme but with different realms.
The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can
be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized,
the user agent MAY reuse the same credentials for all other requests
within that protection space for a period of time determined by the
authentication scheme, parameters, and/or user preferences (such as a
configurable inactivity timeout).
The extent of a protection space, and therefore the requests to which
credentials might be automatically applied, is not necessarily known
to clients without additional information. An authentication scheme
might define parameters that describe the extent of a protection
space. Unless specifically allowed by the authentication scheme, a
single protection space cannot extend outside the scope of its
server.
For historical reasons, a sender MUST only generate the quoted-string
syntax. Recipients might have to support both token and quoted-
string syntax for maximum interoperability with existing clients that
have been accepting both notations for a long time.
11.6. Authenticating Users to Origin Servers
11.6.1. WWW-Authenticate
The "WWW-Authenticate" response header field indicates the
authentication scheme(s) and parameters applicable to the target
resource.
WWW-Authenticate = #challenge
A server generating a 401 (Unauthorized) response MUST send a WWW-
Authenticate header field containing at least one challenge. A
server MAY generate a WWW-Authenticate header field in other response
messages to indicate that supplying credentials (or different
credentials) might affect the response.
A proxy forwarding a response MUST NOT modify any WWW-Authenticate
header fields in that response.
User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the field
value, as it might contain more than one challenge, and each
challenge can contain a comma-separated list of authentication
parameters. Furthermore, the header field itself can occur multiple
times.
For instance:
WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="simple", Newauth realm="apps",
type=1, title="Login to \"apps\""
This header field contains two challenges, one for the "Basic" scheme
with a realm value of "simple" and another for the "Newauth" scheme
with a realm value of "apps". It also contains two additional
parameters, "type" and "title".
Some user agents do not recognize this form, however. As a result,
sending a WWW-Authenticate field value with more than one member on
the same field line might not be interoperable.
| *Note:* The challenge grammar production uses the list syntax
| as well. Therefore, a sequence of comma, whitespace, and comma
| can be considered either as applying to the preceding
| challenge, or to be an empty entry in the list of challenges.
| In practice, this ambiguity does not affect the semantics of
| the header field value and thus is harmless.
11.6.2. Authorization
The "Authorization" header field allows a user agent to authenticate
itself with an origin server -- usually, but not necessarily, after
receiving a 401 (Unauthorized) response. Its value consists of
credentials containing the authentication information of the user
agent for the realm of the resource being requested.
Authorization = credentials
If a request is authenticated and a realm specified, the same
credentials are presumed to be valid for all other requests within
this realm (assuming that the authentication scheme itself does not
require otherwise, such as credentials that vary according to a
challenge value or using synchronized clocks).
A proxy forwarding a request MUST NOT modify any Authorization header
fields in that request. See Section 3.5 of [CACHING] for details of
and requirements pertaining to handling of the Authorization header
field by HTTP caches.
11.6.3. Authentication-Info
HTTP authentication schemes can use the "Authentication-Info"
response field to communicate information after the client's
authentication credentials have been accepted. This information can
include a finalization message from the server (e.g., it can contain
…
[Showing the region around 'reserved for use'. The full document is 502,899 characters - call lookup_rfc with number=9110 and offset= to read more.]
---
Sources: RFC 9110 - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.txt
=== [28] THINKING ===
That jumped to the wrong section. Let me search specifically for the body text of section 15.5.19. I'll try a different search term that would appear in the actual section body about 418 being unused/reserved.
=== [29] TOOL CALL: lookup_rfc (call_ueij46o7) ===
{
"number": 9110,
"search": "418",
"offset": 200000
}
=== [30] TOOL RESULT: lookup_rfc (call_ueij46o7) ===
# RFC 9110
Source: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.txt
[Jumped to '418' at character 366,482 of 502,899; this is inside the section '15.5. Client Error 4xx']
…
ne of the inbound
servers.
15.5.19. 418 (Unused)
[RFC2324] was an April 1 RFC that lampooned the various ways HTTP was
abused; one such abuse was the definition of an application-specific
418 status code, which has been deployed as a joke often enough for
the code to be unusable for any future use.
Therefore, the 418 status code is reserved in the IANA HTTP Status
Code Registry. This indicates that the status code cannot be
assigned to other applications currently. If future circumstances
require its use (e.g., exhaustion of 4NN status codes), it can be re-
assigned to another use.
15.5.20. 421 Misdirected Request
The 421 (Misdirected Request) status code indicates that the request
was directed at a server that is unable or unwilling to produce an
authoritative response for the target URI. An origin server (or
gateway acting on behalf of the origin server) sends 421 to reject a
target URI that does not match an origin for which the server has
been configured (Section 4.3.1) or does not match the connection
context over which the request was received (Section 7.4).
A client that receives a 421 (Misdirected Request) response MAY retry
the request, whether or not the request method is idempotent, over a
different connection, such as a fresh connection specific to the
target resource's origin, or via an alternative service [ALTSVC].
A proxy MUST NOT generate a 421 response.
15.5.21. 422 Unprocessable Content
The 422 (Unprocessable Content) status code indicates that the server
understands the content type of the request content (hence a 415
(Unsupported Media Type) status code is inappropriate), and the
syntax of the request content is correct, but it was unable to
process the contained instructions. For example, this status code
can be sent if an XML request content contains well-formed (i.e.,
syntactically correct), but semantically erroneous XML instructions.
15.5.22. 426 Upgrade Required
The 426 (Upgrade Required) status code indicates that the server
refuses to perform the request using the current protocol but might
be willing to do so after the client upgrades to a different
protocol. The server MUST send an Upgrade header field in a 426
response to indicate the required protocol(s) (Section 7.8).
Example:
HTTP/1.1 426 Upgrade Required
Upgrade: HTTP/3.0
Connection: Upgrade
Content-Length: 53
Content-Type: text/plain
This service requires use of the HTTP/3.0 protocol.
15.6. Server Error 5xx
The 5xx (Server Error) class of status code indicates that the server
is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the
requested method. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the
server SHOULD send a representation containing an explanation of the
error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent
condition. A user agent SHOULD display any included representation
to the user. These status codes are applicable to any request
method.
15.6.1. 500 Internal Server Error
The 500 (Internal Server Error) status code indicates that the server
encountered an unexpected condition that prevented it from fulfilling
the request.
15.6.2. 501 Not Implemented
The 501 (Not Implemented) status code indicates that the server does
not support the functionality required to fulfill the request. This
is the appropriate response when the server does not recognize the
request method and is not capable of supporting it for any resource.
A 501 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise
indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see
Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).
15.6.3. 502 Bad Gateway
The 502 (Bad Gateway) status code indicates that the server, while
acting as a gateway or proxy, received an invalid response from an
inbound server it accessed while attempting to fulfill the request.
15.6.4. 503 Service Unavailable
The 503 (Service Unavailable) status code indicates that the server
is currently unable to handle the request due to a temporary overload
or scheduled maintenance, which will likely be alleviated after some
delay. The server MAY send a Retry-After header field
(Section 10.2.3) to suggest an appropriate amount of time for the
client to wait before retrying the request.
| *Note:* The existence of the 503 status code does not imply
| that a server has to use it when becoming overloaded. Some
| servers might simply refuse the connection.
15.6.5. 504 Gateway Timeout
The 504 (Gateway Timeout) status code indicates that the server,
while acting as a gateway or proxy, did not receive a timely response
from an upstream server it needed to access in order to complete the
request.
15.6.6. 505 HTTP Version Not Supported
The 505 (HTTP Version Not Supported) status code indicates that the
server does not support, or refuses to support, the major version of
HTTP that was used in the request message. The server is indicating
that it is unable or unwilling to complete the request using the sam
…
[Showing the region around '418'. The full document is 502,899 characters - call lookup_rfc with number=9110 and offset= to read more.]
---
Sources: RFC 9110 - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.txt
=== [31] THINKING (12s) ===
Now I have the exact text from RFC 9110 section 15.5.19. This is very interesting and somewhat contradicts what many people believe. Let me summarize what I've found:
1. **RFC 2324** (April 1, 1998) - "Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)" - This is an April Fools' RFC that defined the 418 "I'm a teapot" status code as part of a joke protocol for controlling coffee pots.
2. **RFC 9110** (the current HTTP standard, published June 2022) - Section 15.5.19 says:
- "[RFC2324] was an April 1 RFC that lampooned the various ways HTTP was abused; one such abuse was the definition of an application-specific 418 status code, which has been deployed as a joke often enough for the code to be unusable for any future use."
- "Therefore, the 418 status code is reserved in the IANA HTTP Status Code Registry. This indicates that the status code cannot be assigned to other applications currently. If future circumstances require its use (e.g., exhaustion of 4NN status codes), it can be re-assigned to another use."
3. **IANA Registry** - Lists 418 as "(Unused)" with a reference to RFC 9110 section 15.5.19.
So the answer is nuanced:
- The 418 "I'm a teapot" code was originally defined in RFC 2324, which is an April Fools' RFC (not a standards-track document).
- It is NOT part of the actual HTTP standard in the sense that RFC 9110 does not define what 418 means — it explicitly marks it as "(Unused)" and notes it was a joke from an April 1 RFC.
- However, the code IS reserved in the IANA registry, meaning it cannot be reassigned to something else at this time.
- So technically, 418 is a reserved but unused code in the HTTP standard, not a functional status code with defined semantics.
This is actually a common misconception. Many people think 418 is an official HTTP status code, but the current standard (RFC 9110) explicitly says it's unused and was just a joke. The IANA registry lists it as "(Unused)".
Let me present this clearly to the user.
=== [32] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
Here's the full picture, which is a little more nuanced than most people realize:
## What it means
**418 "I'm a teapot"** — the server refuses to brew coffee because it is, permanently, a teapot. Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in this error.
## Which document defined it
**RFC 2324** — *Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)*, published **April 1, 1998**. It's an **April Fools' RFC**, a facetious protocol for controlling and diagnosing coffee pots. The 418 code appears in section 2.3.2 of that document.
## Is it part of the actual HTTP standard?
**No — not as a functional status code.** The current HTTP standards track document, **RFC 9110** (June 2022), addresses it directly in section 15.5.19:
> "[RFC2324] was an April 1 RFC that lampooned the various ways HTTP was abused; one such abuse was the definition of an application-specific 418 status code, which has been deployed as a joke often enough for the code to be unusable for any future use.
>
> Therefore, the 418 status code is **reserved** in the IANA HTTP Status Code Registry. This indicates that the status code cannot be assigned to other applications currently. If future circumstances require its use (e.g., exhaustion of 4NN status codes), it can be re-assigned to another use."
The IANA registry itself lists 418 as **"(Unused)"**, referencing RFC 9110 §15.5.19.
### So where does that leave it?
| Aspect | Status |
|---|---|
| Defined by an RFC? | Yes — but an April Fools' RFC (2324) |
| Defined in the HTTP standard (RFC 9110)? | No — explicitly marked **Unused** |
| In the IANA registry? | Yes, but listed as **(Unused)** / reserved |
| Can it be reassigned later? | Yes, per RFC 9110's own wording |
| Do servers actually send it? | Some do, purely as a joke (e.g., Google's former easter egg) |
In short: 418 is a **reserved-but-unused** code. It exists in the registry to prevent accidental reuse, but it carries no normative semantics in the HTTP standard.
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
- Processing prompt
- Thinking · first token after 1.8 s
- Thought: The user is asking about HTTP 418. This is a well-known joke status code ("I'm a … tool for the status code and also look up the relevant RFCs.
- Calling network_reference
- Calling lookup_rfc
- Thinking
- Thought: Let me search for RFC 2324 and RFC 7161 to get the details right.
- Calling lookup_rfc
- Calling web_search
- Thinking
- Thought: The RFC 7161 lookup returned the wrong RFC (it's about PMIPv6). Let me look up the … search for what formally registered 418 in the IANA registry.
- Calling web_search
- Thinking
- Thought: Let me fetch the IANA registry page and the Stack Overflow answer to get authoritative details about whether 418 is officially registered.
- Calling fetch_page
- Calling fetch_page
- Thinking
- Thought: This is very interesting and important. The IANA registry currently lists 418 as … look at RFC 9110 section 15.5.19 to see what it says about 418.
- Calling lookup_rfc
- Thinking
- Thought: The search jumped to the table of contents entry for 15.5.19 but I need the actual section body. Let me search for the actual content of section 15.5.19.
- Calling lookup_rfc
- Thinking
- Thought: The search jumped to the table of contents again. I need to find the actual section … a different term that would appear in the actual section body.
- Calling lookup_rfc
- Thinking
- Thought: That jumped to the wrong section. Let me search specifically for the body text of … in the actual section body about 418 being unused/reserved.
- Calling lookup_rfc
- Thinking
- Thought: Now I have the exact text from RFC 9110 section 15.5.19. This is very interesting and … it as "(Unused)". Let me present this clearly to the user.
- Writing response
- Done · 11 tool calls · prefill 1.7 s for 12,675 tokens · 2,430 generated