W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: 301/302

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 20:51:46 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199709081851.UAA24230@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: john@math.nwu.edu
Cc: lawrence@agranat.com, fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4363
John Franks:
>I hope I am wrong, but we seem to have painted ourselves in a corner
>here.  On the one hand we have decided that the client's version
>should not be communicated to the origin server when there are proxies
>(all version information is hop-by-hop).

As remarked elsewhere in this thread, we have the Via header for this.

>  And on the other hand we
>have created end-to-end headers (e.g. 303/307) which are not
>reasonably handled by HTTP/1.0 clients. 

Last time I checked (and this is about a year ago), all major (1.0)
clients would treat any 3xx request with a Location header in it as
`convert to GET and redirect'.  I would call this handling reasonable

So for redirection of a GET request, site authors will be able to
convert from 302 to 307 without any problems according to my

There will only be problems with old clients for sites which want to
redirect a non-GET request without it being converted to a GET, and
these problems are inevitable no matter what we define.

So I'm not loosing any sleep over this change.

>John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
>		john@math.nwu.edu

Received on Monday, 8 September 1997 11:59:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC