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

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 
people.
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.

         ~~Yves