- From: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:04:31 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Larry Masinter wrote: > We seem to be going around in circles on this one. > > Yes, some people prefer the proposal expanded in the message > http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1997q3/0402.html > > which isn't just "add 307", but a complicated "add 307, > deprecate 302 but leave it there anyway". You have just shown that it can be nicely summarized in a few words. > Most people at the meeting in Munich seemed to prefer the > alternative, which is just "swap 302 and 303". > > We know there is some argument for cleanliness, for those who > went ahead and implemented 303 as it was originally described. > But it was felt "the cat's not really out of the bag". So if > it isn't, can we just go ahead and do the swap? So if it _is_, can we just go ahead and do the "add 307, deprecate 302 but leave it there"? In my view the 302 cat was out of the bag when 1945 was published, and the 303 cat out of the bag when 2068 was published. RFCs _do_ get read by some people, 303 was discussed on newsgroups and appears in a CGI FAQ, it is likely that it appears in some books on the topic. Now the choice is between making completely (and unnecessarily) incompatible protocol changes on the one hand, and changing only what contradicts with reality OTOH. > We need to decide this one soon. Is this is more urgent than other ISSUEs? Either way, for the main practical question which triggered this issue, whether issuing GET in response to a 302 response to a POST is allowed, the answer will be the same: yes it is. Klaus
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 1997 10:09:11 UTC