W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Way redirect POST? [was Re: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session.

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:33:03 -0800 (PST)
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: jg@pa.dec.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, lynx-dev@sig.net, joshco@microsoft.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971210102732.17137F-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4888

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> That would make 305 utterly safe, and it's not obvious to me why a
> POST or other non-safe request would ever be redirected to a proxy
> with intention that the content be retained (it's most likely to be
> used by scripts homologously to 302/303), so I doubt this would pose
> a functionality problem.

As a HTTP based application builder, it is quite clear to me why I want
to redirect a POST as a POST to another server with/without proxy
considerations. If the POST isn't redirected, all the reasons for
using a POST method in the first place get broken IF the intent is
to have the redirect target process the POST as submitted.

In one developer community whose mailing list I follow, a request for
how to accomplish this function comes up at least once a week ... which
suggests to me a much higher demand since each time the request comes
up some additional percentage of the group learns that it isn't possible
and some other mechanism is required to forward the POSTed content to
the processing server.

I'm not proposing any changes but I wanted to make it clear that there
is an unaddressed requirement for seamless redirection of POST requests.

Dave Morris
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 1997 10:20:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC