![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 .
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)
User:Rfc1394/Blame Transfer Protocol. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
I keep reverting a dead link ( red link) and people keep reverting it. Why are the red links important?
Swag master ( talk) 14:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It appears that ISO 3103 compliance was not considered during the writing of the RFC. Should we note this? BlindWanderer ( talk) 20:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 .
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)
User:Rfc1394/Blame Transfer Protocol. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
I keep reverting a dead link ( red link) and people keep reverting it. Why are the red links important?
Swag master ( talk) 14:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It appears that ISO 3103 compliance was not considered during the writing of the RFC. Should we note this? BlindWanderer ( talk) 20:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)