Re: Clarification on HTTP redirects 301,302, and 307

The feeling in the SCIM WG, was that we should escalate to the HTTPbis group rather than try to tackle it. I definitely hear you about the charter and the Chrome issue.

Still, from my perspective, the existing semantics draft is not clear with regards to both 301 and 302 suggesting the same 307 code.

Sounds like, I should leave my proposal as is, except maybe to change 308 to 309 and let the ADs sort it out. I can also make sure it doesn't conflict with the semantics draft (the above issue aside). 

One of the reasons I chose REST in my draft was to narrow the scope of services to avoid any overlap with user-agent.  Does that occur if I open it to any HTTP service not intended for user-agents?

Happy to make any other changes to the draft in the mean time to reflect the discussion.

Thanks,

Phil

@independentid
www.independentid.com
phil.hunt@oracle.com

On 2014-01-16, at 12:48 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-01-16 21:43, Phil Hunt wrote:
>> What is the objection to 308?
> 
> It's new. We can't put it into RFC2616bis due to our charter.
> 
>> If there is good reason not to use it, why not pick another code?
> 
> The spec is already approved and the status code is registered.
> 
> That being said, Chrome hasn't made any progress implementing it because it conflicts with an internal use of 308 in the Google Drive HTTP binding.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 20:57:15 UTC