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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:12:18 +0100
Message-ID: <52D84B32.7070907@gmx.de>
To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-01-16 21:56, Phil Hunt wrote:
> 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.

Well, feedback from the Chrome team back in 2012 was to go ahead and use 
308. They "just" need to do their homework now.

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

Again: can you propose something else that works within the constraints 
we're working in?

> 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).

What? Do you want to seriously suggest an alias of 308? That's not going 
to fly.

> 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?

"We use the term "user agent" to refer to any of the various client 
programs that initiate a request, including (but not limited to) 
browsers, spiders (web-based robots), command-line tools, native 
applications, and mobile apps." -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25.html#rfc.section.2.1.p.2>

...so I'm not sure what the question is about. In general, thinking of 
"Rest services" as something different from what's used by a browser is 
a really bad idea.

> Happy to make any other changes to the draft in the mean time to reflect the discussion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil
> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 21:12:55 UTC

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