W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

HTTP/1.1 redirect handling

From: Gisle Aas <gisle@aas.no>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:12:33 GMT
Message-Id: <199803201615.RAA19756@furu.g.aas.no>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Cc: libwww-perl@ics.uci.edu
I am trying to update libwww-perl to deal with automatic redirect as
specified by HTTP/1.1.  I am reading <draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-03>.

First some comments:

  1)  Perhaps there should be a note explaining why there is no
      code for 306 (if there is a reason)?

  2)  The "Note:" for 305 says:

      > Note: RFC 2068 was not clear that 305 was intended to redirect a
      > single request, or to be generated by origin servers only. Not
      > observing these limitations has significant security consequences.

      I can not parse this sentence within this context without
      substituting "or" with "and".  Is this just a typo?

And then some question I hope you can clarify?

  A common phrase for all descriptions are:

     > If the new URI is a location, its URL SHOULD be given by the Location
     > field in the response.

  but I don't understand what the case of "the new URI" not being a
  location would imply?

If I summarize the behaviour prescribed I get this table (I only care
about the client behaviour):

      PREREQ          METHOD  URI         PROXY
      -------------   ------  ----------  -----------
301   GET|HEAD|ask    same    Location    -
302   GET|HEAD|ask    same    Location    -
303   -               GET     Location    -
305   -               same    same        Location
307   GET|HEAD|ask    same    Location    -

"ask" means to ask the user if resending the request to the new
location is ok.

302 and 307 are described to be identical, but the notes seems to
indicate that 302 would better be implemented as 303 to conform to
what most browsers do.  Should I do that?

If the original method was HEAD, then I assume that the sensible thing
to do for 303 is to use HEAD (not GET) in the redirect requests too.
Agree?

Why is there no demand for "confirmation by the user" for 305 request?

Regards,
Gisle Aas
Received on Monday, 23 March 1998 09:26:32 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:13 EDT