- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 07:21:24 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 19.09.2024 18:26, Graham Klyne wrote: > ref: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-02.html > > Scanning this draft, and in particular section 4.2, I started wondering > about an indirect response vs a redirected response. Specifically, I was > thinking of an HTTP 301 (moved permanently) response. Is this to > resubmit the "query" to a different resource, or to always revisit the > specified resource for a response to the same query? QUERY doesn't change the semantics of the redirect codes. 301 means: please resubmit the same request to the URI in the Location field (and this is a permanent move). > I had to go re-check, but I think the HTTP spec is reasonably clear > about this (use 303 for indirect response, use 307 or 308 to resubmit > the query elsewhere, probably avoid 301, 302). I'm wondering if some Yes. > (non-normative) discussion of this is appropriate? It strikes me that > this method is likely to be used by arbitrary non-browser applications, > whose authors may not be as deeply steeped in HTTP specifics as (say) a > browser implementer, and who might benefit from a little additional > guidance here. Or at least point a reader at > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-status-codes ? I agree that we should expand the examples (and also combine them with the discussion about Content-Location vs Location). Do you want to open a ticket at https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions to track this? Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2024 05:21:30 UTC