W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:02:09 +1200
Message-ID: <4E2412B1.4010800@treenet.co.nz>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 18/07/11 19:05, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-07-18 04:21, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> ...
>> This MSIE handling of 301 is a big problem in some installations. To the
>> point that they are migrating their customers away from MSIE just to get
>> the Firefox/Chrome behaviour.
>> ...
> How so? Why don't they fix their sites? Details, please.

301 - Portals enforcing policy of no unencrypted content past the border 
and bouncing the http:// requests to https:// at the gateway.
  They require all inbound http:// get redirected to https:// without 
bothering the user. Method remaining unchanged through the redirect. 301 
is perfect here, as the domain is fixed and all http:// URLs are 
permanently redirected to their https:// exact equivalents. For MSIE 
this only works on POST.

307 - Portals doing policy agreements and splash pages. They require at 
minimum an arbitrary page of content to be visible to the user 
regardless of whether the request first made was a GET, CONNECT, POST 
etc. 307 seems to fit best until the 428 starts working on all requests. 
Preserving the method is important here.

3 months ago when I last saw this needed only Firefox and Chrome were 
doing 307 right. This is the first I've seen with MSIE on the good list 

>> ...
>>> All that said, GET and POST are vastly more common for browsers to
>>> handle than other methods. Having reasonable requirements for GET and
>>> POST would be a welcome step forward.
>>> Adam
>> Even just idempotent / non-idempotent separation would be great. That
>> also leaves it open for consistency with future methods.
>> ...
> That doesn't work, as given a new method name, you don't know whether
> it's idempotent or not.

Thats one of the things the new drafts require them to indicate now, 
with unknowns treated as non-idempotent by default. yes?

Received on Monday, 18 July 2011 11:02:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:58 UTC