- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:15:03 +0100
- To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
- CC: mnot@mnot.net, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2014-12-30 17:00, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Julian, > > Hmmm, so maybe the quoted text from 7238 is misleading and should s/HTTP/[RFC7231]/ since the quote you give from 7231 quite clearly says "This specification" and not "HTTP". But that is not the main point. > > I will attempt to reason this once more by asking you a question: > If I build an HTTP v1.1 implementation today, should I include support for 308 or not? Yes, as it is a registered HTTP status code, and we want it to be broadly implemented. > I know I *can* make a free choice, but what is the expectation? What would you consider a correct implementation of HTTP v1.1? HTTP/1.1 is a collection of specifications, plus a number of registries. This makes the question hard to answer. If you don't implement 308, but do implement all unknown 3xx codes the way RFC 7231 requires, you will be compliant to RFC 7231, which defines redirect handling in general. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2014 16:15:44 UTC