- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:04:36 +0100
- To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Leif Johansson <leifj@sunet.se>
On 2014-01-29 22:18, Phil Hunt wrote: > ... > I am not sure if it was intentional for servers that want to preserve > HTTP requests to use 307 for *both* temporary and permanent redirects. > It means clients can't tell if the redirect is permanent or not because > they don't know whether the request was originally 301 or 302. > > Is it intended that servers can only use 307 temporary redirects if they > want to prevent the client from changing the request? > ... It's caused by the fact that status code 307 was the only one having method preservation capabilities. This is not the outcome of a well-designed plan, but simply the best we could come up with given the constraints of RFC 2616, the realities of implementations, and the charter for this set of specs. Note that you can affect the cacheability of the 307 message using Cache-Control. And yes, this is exactly why I came up with code 308. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2014 07:05:10 UTC