- From: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:43:06 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
What is the objection to 308? If there is good reason not to use it, why not pick another code? Phil @independentid www.independentid.com phil.hunt@oracle.com On 2014-01-16, at 12:23 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2014-01-16 21:11, Phil Hunt wrote: >> Both 301 and 302 say to use 307 if conversion to GET is not desired. >> >> With 307 used for both temporary and perm redirect, 307 loses meaning causing the confusion. >> >> Phil >> ... > > Do you have a concrete change proposal that doesn't require putting 308 into the base spec? > > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 20:43:40 UTC