Opened 11 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#312 closed design (fixed)
should there be a permanent variant of 307
Reported by: | julian.reschke@… | Owned by: | julian.reschke@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | later | Milestone: | 20 |
Component: | p2-semantics | Severity: | Active WG Document |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
301 can not be used reliably for permanent redirects that leave the method alone.
Should there be a variant of 307 that implies permanence? If not, should we describe how to *make* it permanent using caching directives?
Attachments (2)
Change History (17)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution set to wontfix
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Resolution wontfix deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
I think the summary is correct; but there's still a TODO.
Either we should decide that defining a new status somewhere else makes sense; that depends a bit on whether a new code is deployable (which it probably is not).
Otherwise, we should add some language to P2 *demonstrating* how to do this instead of ignoring the issue.
comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 18
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from reopened to closed
comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:6 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:7 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Resolution incorporated deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reschke-http-status-308/ is in IETF Last Call, ending 2012-03-16.
Should it get approved we should change the note added in [1474] and [1475] to point to that spec.
comment:8 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from 18 to unassigned
- Owner changed from draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@… to julian.reschke@…
- Priority changed from normal to easy
- Status changed from reopened to new
comment:9 Changed 11 years ago by mnot@…
- Priority changed from easy to later
comment:10 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
Spec approved; see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reschke-http-status-308/
comment:11 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:12 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:13 Changed 11 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 20
comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution incorporated deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from reopened to closed
Minting a new status code is out-of-charter for us (but of course can be done in an independent draft, and we could incorporate it into draft-nottingham-http-new-status).
IIRC we've discusssed "permanent' cache-control before, and the consensus was that there's little value in defining new directives to do so, and techniques for doing it with existing directives are well-known.
So, closing this as wont fix; if I missed something, please reopen.