- From: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:42:56 -0800
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "scim@ietf.org WG" <scim@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Assuming you are refering to the 308 redirect draft. What is the current reference for 308? REST services need redirects that do not convert to GET. That would corrupt the operation. Phil > On Jan 16, 2014, at 7:21, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > >> 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 a) You reference an outdated spec.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 15:43:37 UTC