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

This would be fine with me.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 10/13/2003 11:34:45 AM:

> 
> 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
>