Misnamed keyword on exception type?

[MarcusSky]

Hey guys, I was looking through the code, and I noticed that here we're naming the keyword unexceptional-status - shouldn't it be namedexceptional-status since unexceptional-status-for-request? returned false ?

[rymndhng]

This is my first time looking at the implementation, and I also think it would be better named as exceptional-status.

To avoid breaking the library for existing users, I think it's preferrable to leave it as-is for the 3.x branch. We can consider changing this behaviour perhaps for 4.x which is still in early stages.

[MarcusSky]

Sounds fair! should I open a pull request?