W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-http-rest-redirect-00.txt

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:21:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CALcoZiruA-GD4RtJkdq__fBwr7C5eryy5u5MeqECorfk+1N=YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>, "scim@ietf.org WG" <scim@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2014-01-16 01:03, Phil Hunt wrote:
>>
>> In the SCIM working group, the issue came up as to what to do about HTTP
>> Redirects for RESTful services (of which SCIM is one). On Leif's
>> suggestion, I put together a quick draft covering the topic to raise to
>> the HTTPbis working group as this seems to apply to all RESTful services.
>>
>> I also note that there is an existing draft
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reschke-http-status-308/, which I
>> have referenced in this draft.
>>
>> Phil
>> ...
>
>
> -1

+1 to your -1

>
> a) You reference an outdated spec.
>
> b) You have statements about the existing redirection codes that are in
> conflict with the relevant specs.

c) you specify a protocol that is known to be incompatible with
deployed implementations and inconsistent with REST and Web
architecture in significant ways

>
> What problem are you trying to solve here?

News to me, but SCIM is apparently an IETF WG;

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/scim/charter/

IMO, this draft doesn't bode well for the ability of the group to meet
its (REST-oriented) charter, or for implementations to be deployed
while interoperating properly with existing Web infrastructure.

Mark.
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:22:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:23 UTC