Talk:Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Truth is stranger than fiction[edit]

See here.

"An Australian man has discovered security holes in his internet-connected coffee maker that could allow a remote attacker to not only take over his Windows XP-based PC but also make his coffee too weak."

Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Out Of Coffee[edit]

"As Stefan Moebius noted, the HTCPCP does not define the error response for Out of Coffee."

Wouldn't that be "404: Not Found"? According to the RFC "Normal HTTP return codes are used to indicate difficulties of the HTCPCP server," and therefore 404 is a valid return code. Just a thought.---Puff (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If the device is just out of coffee grounds internally, it should return "503: Service Unavailable" to indicate that it needs service before returning to normal operations.
If the device is intelligent enough it should reply with "410: Gone" to indicate instances when there is no more coffee to fill with (and someone has to go buy more).
The normal response for a device that has accepted the request and started brewing would of course be "202: Accepted".
If the client checks again later when the brewing is complete and there is suficient coffee it would of course reply with "200: OK".
Then there is of course the classic case of someone having left the device too empty to fill a full cup, so that when your client request a full cup it will recieve "206: Partial Content".
Unfortunately the RFC is poorly written when it comes to return codes.
It states:
Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error code "418 I'm a teapot". The resulting entity body MAY be short and stout.
Which, if read literally means that all requests should give a 418, no matter what the status of the device actually is.
This is clearly not taking into account regions of the world where teapots are the preferred coffee making devices...
85.225.176.128 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

These comments are not really relevant here; you should address them to the editors at IETF. The document is, after all, a "request for comments" ;-). --ChristopheS (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious purpose[edit]

Note that the humorous RFC was written as a parody of several disturbing trends in the IETF: to use HTTP as the substrate for every new protocol (Internet Print Protocol had a long discussion about using PRINT vs. POST). Another goal was to parody all of the various mis-uses of HTTP extensibility. Finally, people usually miss the related MIB, which parodied many of the mis-uses of SNMP. Also, see History of Internet Personal Appliances in IETF for a talk to an IETF working group wanting to standardize such protocols. Masinter (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC) (Larry Masinter, 3/3/10 6:39 pm PST)

Implementation of protocol[edit]

The mozilla bug-tracker bugzilla actually contains a complaint about the Firefox browser not supporting HTCPCP. This has caused a stream of (entertaining) comments. 84.82.112.181 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in the article since 22 December 2005. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to expect people to actually read the article before making comments/complaints on its Talk page, you're just going to drive people away! Such unreasonable constraints are really old school. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

134.219.188.123 does not actually implement the protocol[edit]

The caption of the picture says that the server implements the protocol. It does not:

% telnet 134.219.188.123 80
Trying 134.219.188.123...
Connected to 134.219.188.123.
Escape character is '^]'.
PROPFIND POT-1 HTCPCP/1.0
<head>
<title>Error response</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Error response</h1>
<p>Error code 400.
<p>Message: Bad request version ('HTCPCP/1.0').
<p>Error code explanation: 400 = Bad request syntax or unsupported method.
</body>
Connection closed by foreign host.

The caption should be changed. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.126.48 (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Periodically it has some downtime - it's up most of the time (just checked) 134.219.188.230 (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Article badly needs context and a tone rewrite[edit]

While I realize this is a somewhat complex area, this article desperately needs to be rewritten with a) less snickering humor, and b) more basic context of why such a protocol was created, the actual purpose it serves, etc. As is right now it's pretty much the written equivalent of a bunch of programmers giggling and elbowing each other in a staff meeting about a joke they made up together. Yes, we get the joke. IT guys and programmers like coffee and they like servers. No, its not meaningful unless you somehow tie the humor to an explanation. Wikipedia editors are not all programmers and IT people, and they prefer context to smirking in-jokes that don't benefit anybody except the person who created the page and his co-workers. Imagine what the math or science articles would look like if all the physicists got together and decided to make joke articles about Fourier transforms and subatomic phenomena where only they "got it". Harmless fun? Mostly. Irritatingly cliquish and uninformative to most readers, thus violating the spirit of the encyclopedia? Definitely.

I'd almost be tempted to file this under "semi-clever, externally-meaningless, workplace-specific jokes you and your co-workers invented to pass the hours on a slow work day" if it didn't somehow already have de facto notability under the rules. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you've gone a tad overboard in your criticism, but you're right that this article doesn't explain the situation to the non-programmer. You're also right that it won't be easy to explain it without creation an original-research essay ... but it sounds like you know enough to give it a shot! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
After some poking around, I'm darned if I can find a reliable source which says "it was created as a joke but it actually works" - which is what we need. Help is needed in source-hunting! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I am VERY fond of rules and standards. I also like to be inclusive, not make anyone feel like an outsider. This article is one of the few exceptions that I feel sympathy about. I am not an IT guy, nor a programmer, nor do I like coffee (I am female and prefer tea). But this is so sweet and clever! I understand enough of the humor that I smiled and was delighted with the article. It would be a shame to re-write it and thus lose the humor. Must it be removed? Or, if rewritten, perhaps the original version could be moved somewhere else rather than lost.
Another matter to consider before rewriting this article: The reader feedback is spectacularly positive. I did a copy and paste:
Rating type Average rating # of ratings
Trustworthy 4.8 36
Objective 4.6 32
Complete 4.1 32
Well-written 4.6 33

Just a guess, I haven't seen any aggregated results, purely empirical observation... these are the best numbers for any Wikipedia page that I recall visiting. And a reason not to do away with the page. It has highly valued content. --FeralOink (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody wants to "do away with the page" - just make it more encyclopedia-ish. It may have made you chuckle, but a real article would help the 99% of people who don't get the joke - telling them, for example, why and how the protocol was created, so maybe they could get the joke too. Currently, the article is a complete waste for them. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

blam this crap[edit]

I dont care how many nerds care about this, but it's a stupid april fool's joke that needs to end. wikipedia is not the place for it. If you feel the joke itself is noteworthy, keep it relevant to it as a joke. (hint: it's not noteworthy.) ViniTheHat (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because this is an important piece of early internet culture - it was an April fools joke that was making a serious point about the way that the internet at the time was forming - absolutely the article needs a bit of a clear out (partly to make it clear that this *was* an April fools joke) but there are sources all over the place https://www.google.com/search?q=Hyper+Text+Coffee+Pot+Control+Protocol&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 .

A ref has been given (maybe you did it, not-sign-my-post person?). I have expanded the introduction slightly in an attempt to provide context. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I think I've given it enough context that I've even removed the hatnotes. Let's see if others agree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
We'd still love a quote and/or link to a legitimate source talking about its reflection of "about the way that the internet at the time was forming" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
From the webpage of the person who wrote it [1] (I think that's also User:Masinter) "RFC 2324 "Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)." L. Masinter. April 1, 1998. This has a serious purpose -- it identifies many of the ways in which HTTP has been extended inappropriately." maybe there are more? Worth pinging User:Masinter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.188.230 (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

photo gone?[edit]

The photo - of a teapot atop a server - isgone. It was kind of a stupid photo and its loss doesn't cause much harm, IMHO, but I'm curious why it was deleted. Anybody know? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

See the file's log entry at Commons; apparently, it lacked evidence of permission and the uploader failed to respond to a notification. The photo originated from this web page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The webpage is now, (as of the last five minutes or so) pretty clear about permissions - would someone with an account mind putting the image back? I'd rather not get a named account for the sole purpose of putting up a picture and I think there might be something about a conflict of interest if I put this up? Joe 134.219.205.140 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The only text about permission I found was this, the general terms & conditions of Royal Holloway, University of London; that text clearly states that material on their website is not freely licensed. What did you see? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay so they are photos I took, and I changed the page to make it clear that they are being released... (the "I HAPPILY RELEASE ALL THE TEAPOT RELATED IMAGES TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN" at [2]) but I can see the point that wikipedia might want to take the overall policy of the site that's hosting them... can anyone recommend a way I can release these to the public domain in a way that wikipedia will accept? I'm a little confused... and I think the page would look good with a relevant image, and there might not be that many relevant images... Joe 134.219.205.140 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
IANAL, but I think that release on the page itself should be sufficient; maybe you could sprinkle some alphabet soup like CC-BY-SA 3.0 and/or GFDL into that sentence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Updated - there is now some suitable alphabet soup at http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/home/joseph/teapot.html - does that sort things out? Bit confused generally here…134.219.188.241 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Added as File:HTCPCP Pot.jpg. I took the liberty of reducing the original image size from 464 KB to 38 KB by converting it to JPEG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

See also[edit]

User:Rfc1394/Blame Transfer Protocol. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

http://coffee.wikimedia.org[edit]

I just discovered that //coffee.wikimedia.org redirects here. I thought some folks might be interested to hear that. Bawolff (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)