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

On 2011-10-29 01:12, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> 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.
> ...

OK, here's something we could say in the text about 307:

       Note: this status code is similar to 302 Found, except that it
       does not allow rewriting the request method from POST to GET.
       There is no equivalent counterpart for 301 Moved Permanently.
       Servers that need a "permanent" variant of this status code can
       specify it's lifetime using Cache-Control (Section 3.2 of
       [Part6]), for instance by using "Cache-Control: max-age=315360000"
       (an expiry time ten years in the future).

Feedback appreciated, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 19:35:15 UTC