- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:56:38 +0200
- To: "Gary Wilson Jr." <gary.wilson@gmail.com>
- Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, tpauly@apple.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 13.09.2022 um 15:02 schrieb Gary Wilson Jr.: > Hi Julian, > > The section for status code 308 currently has no mention stating that > the client should not change the request method (while 307 status code > text and obsoleted rfc7538 text both do mention this). This seems > inaccurate and inconsistent with other text, e.g. section "15.4. > Redirection 3xx" mentioning "307 (Temporary Redirect) and 308 (Permanent > Redirect) [RFC7538] were later added to unambiguously indicate > method-preserving redirects..." > > Thanks, > Gary Indeed; you are right. I really really was convinced that we had the text completely consistent; but somehow we messed up. So yes, the erratum is correct, and the text for 308 should contain a statement about not changing the method. Related to this, I'm now officially confused why we talk about potentially multiple "enclosed" URIs for 301 and 308. Roy, is there some history for 301 that I'm missing? Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2022 14:57:08 UTC