On 29/10/2011, at 2:35 AM, Yves Lafon wrote: > 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. +1 > 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) But then you have a deployment problem; it won't be backwards-compatible with most existing browsers (i.e., the redirect won't work), so it'll never get out there. AFAICT the only way to deploy would be to mint a new CC directive that means "forever" -- and we've already discussed that and decided not to go that way, IIRC. My personal .02 - I think this is close with no action, or at most a bit of prose in 307. Cheers, > >> 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 > > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 23:13:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:26 UTC