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

Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:22:45 -0600
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D73BF056-4B6B-44DC-A40B-DF381B3C585A@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
WFM

On 11/11/2011, at 3:13 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-11-03 04:45, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> On 03/11/2011, at 6:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2011-10-29 01:12, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 29/10/2011, at 2:35 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/312>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So now that we have allowed UAs to rewrite a 301 POST to GET (see<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/160>), the spec doesn't have a permanent redirect that always preserves the method.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (We *do* have the equivalent for temporary redirects: 307).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So...:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) Is this a problem?
>>>>> 
>>>>> First thing is... was 301 ever used to change entries in a bookmark or a link in a page? If not, then it's not a problem worth adding a new status code.
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>>> A 307 with a long enough cache time should be enough to redirect people.
>>>>> If it is, then 2a would be the best option (in another doc)
>>>> 
>>>> But then you have a deployment problem; it won't be backwards-compatible with most existing browsers (i.e., the redirect won't work), so it'll never get out there.
>>>> 
>>>> AFAICT the only way to deploy would be to mint a new CC directive that means "forever" -- and we've already discussed that and decided not to go that way, IIRC.
>>>> 
>>>> My personal .02 - I think this is close with no action, or at most a bit of prose in 307.
>>>> ...
>>> 
>>> OK, here's something we could say in the text about 307:
>>> 
>>>      Note: this status code is similar to 302 Found, except that it
>>>      does not allow rewriting the request method from POST to GET.
>>>      There is no equivalent counterpart for 301 Moved Permanently.
>>>      Servers that need a "permanent" variant of this status code can
>>>      specify it's lifetime using Cache-Control (Section 3.2 of
>>>      [Part6]), for instance by using "Cache-Control: max-age=315360000"
>>>      (an expiry time ten years in the future).
>>> 
>> 
>> +0 -- not against it, not sure it's really necessary (but happy to put it in if that moves us forward).
> 
> OK, seems that this proposal didn't get sufficient support then.
> 
> How about simply saying:
> 
> >       Note: This status code is similar to 302 Found, except that it
> >       does not allow rewriting the request method from POST to GET.
> >       There is no equivalent counterpart for 301 Moved Permanently.
> 
> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/312/312.diff>) for now?
> 
> Best regards, Julian

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 16:23:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT