- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:45:27 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Julian, On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 10:06:05AM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-12-07 09:53, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > >On 07/12/2011, at 7:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >>>I disagree. All 3xx codes are redirects and only some of those MAY > >>>be followed with automatic redirection -- the ones with a Location > >>>header field indicating the preferred redirect target. The default > >>>behavior applies if the recipient does not know the new code. > >>>... > >> > >>Indeed: > >> > >>"If the server has a preferred choice of representation, it SHOULD > >>include the specific URI for that representation in the Location field; > >>user agents MAY use the Location field value for automatic redirection." > >> > >>So for new 3xx responses that come with "Location", UAs MAY use it for > >>automatic redirection. But then, they don't have to. > > > >So, it sounds like we need a new paragraph (or similar) in p2 8.3 > >redirection... > > To say what? > > A 3xx with Location is more like 302 then 300? I don't think we should say something like this. For instance a new 3xx might provide a Location header which would only be conditionnally used. Requiring UAs to process 3xx like 302 if they see a Location header seems problematic for the long term. Why not say that a Location header might be used in conjunction with new 3xx headers but UAs must not use it unless they understand this 3xx ? Regards, Willy
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 13:46:49 UTC