W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307?

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1110281132020.8361@wnl.j3.bet>
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:

> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/312>
> So now that we have allowed UAs to rewrite a 301 POST to GET (see 
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/160>), the spec doesn't 
> have a permanent redirect that always preserves the method.
> (We *do* have the equivalent for temporary redirects: 307).
> So...:
> 1) Is this a problem?

First thing is... was 301 ever used to change entries in a bookmark or a 
link in a page? If not, then it's not a problem worth adding a new status 
code. A 307 with a long enough cache time should be enough to redirect 
If it is, then 2a would be the best option (in another doc)

> 2) If yes, how can we fix it?
> 2a) Define a new code (in a separate spec)?
> 2b) Explain that a 307 can be made permanent by adding Cache-Control magic.
> My 17 cents:
> 2a) This might be hard to deploy, but maybe that's not a problem for those 
> applications that want to use it. If we do that, it needs a separate spec (or 
> it could go into Mark's new-status-codes thingy).
> 2b) This probably could be smuggled into HTTPbis, but in this case I'd 
> *really* like to see us adding a concrete example.
> Best regards, Julian

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 15:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:26 UTC