Re: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on status-change-http-status-code-308-ps-01: (with DISCUSS)

On 2014-12-30 11:43, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Sure thing...
>
> As noted in section 1 of 7238
>
>     Section 6.4.7 of [RFC7231] states that HTTP does not define a
>     permanent variant of status code 307; this specification adds the
>     status code 308, defining this missing variant (Section 3).
>
> I think you are defining 308 as part of HTTP. So 7231 is now wrong to say that HTTP does not define a permanent variant of 307.

It doesn't say that.

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#rfc.section.6.4.7.p.3> says:

"... This specification defines no equivalent counterpart for 301 (Moved 
Permanently) ([RFC7238], however, defines the status code 308 (Permanent 
Redirect) for this purpose)."

That is still true.

> Furthermore, I think you would hope that new implementations of HTTP 1.1 (i.e. 7231) also include support for 308.
>
> That's an update IMHO.

No, it's not. HTTP status codes are an extension point, that's why we 
have a registry. Adding new status codes doesn't require updating the 
core documents.

> Adrian
>
> PS This is just a Metadata change in the same way as Exp->PS is a Metadata change, so it should be possible to handle it in the same way.

That may be true, but it would be an incorrect update.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2014 10:54:01 UTC