- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:07:01 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-01-25 00:56, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 25/01/2012, at 5:18 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2012-01-19 18:57, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Indeed; I forgot that I was cross-posting :-) >>> >>> I have raised this point as >>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/332>. >> >> In the meantime I made a small change to HTTPbis P2, which still called 307 "a new status code". The advice on the response body is now the same as for 302. >> >> See<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1508>. >> >> Best regards, Julian >> > > +1, I think that's a resolution to 322. The question remains whether we should relax more of the SHOULD-level requirements on response payloads. At least some of them seem fishy (not necessarily the 3xx ones). Will send separate mail later this week. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 00:07:49 UTC