- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:49:15 +1300
- To: Nicholas Shanks <contact@nickshanks.com>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Isn't this a symptom of the problem with the initial redirect code? If the automated client thinks it's being redirected to an alternative source of the same resource, then it will treat it differently to if it thinks it is being diverted. A human (hopefully) can tell the difference. Can't we solve this one with the solution to the problems of 301/302 and GET following POST? I.e. introduce a divert code, which specifically means, "you've been diverted to here", rather than "you can get what you were looking for here". Could use 307 for that? e.g, clarify the intent of 307 to mean a diversion rather than a detour (i.e. different destination rather than different path to same destination). One more for the pot. Adrien Nicholas Shanks wrote: > On 15 Mar 2007, at 14:53, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> 402 is reserved, and I think the original intent was making a payment >> to the origin server, not to the folks who give you the network to >> get there... > > I think 402 is the best status code here. There's nothing in RFC2616 > that says intermediate servers can't request payment too. > > - Nicholas. > >
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 20:49:25 UTC