W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2003

redirect ref spec, update on issue lc-85-301

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:34:45 +0200
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAELNIMAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Hi,

one of the (many) open issues for the redirect spec is the support for
additional response codes, initially reported by Jim.

I just re-read RFC2616's section on 3xx status codes, and here's my summary
and a proposal how to resolve this:

HTTP seems to distinguish the following use cases:

(a) permanent redirect (301),
(b) temporary redirect (302 or 307),
(c) redirect to a GET location after POST (303) and
(d) agent-driven negotiation (300).

Among these, (a) and (b) seem to be well understood, so we should support
both. (c) doesn't seem to be applicable. (d) may become interesting when
user agents start supporting it, so the spec should be flexible enough to
support a feature extension for that.

For now I propose that the client is able to specify the redirection type as
a resource type, such as "DAV:permanent-redirect-reference" and
"DAV:temporary-redirect-reference". This spec would only define the
behaviour for these two resource types and would allow future extensions
using new resource types and suggested response codes.


(See
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-lat
est.html#rfc.issue.lc-85-301>)

Regards,

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 13 October 2003 11:37:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT