Opened 7 years ago

Closed 6 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)

312.diff (989 bytes) - added by julian.reschke@… 7 years ago.
Proposed patch
312.2.diff (1.8 KB) - added by julian.reschke@… 6 years ago.
Proposed patch (pointing at status code 308)

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (17)

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new 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.

comment:2 Changed 7 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.

Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

Proposed patch

comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [1474]:

Note that there is no permanent variant of 307 (see #312)

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 18
  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [1475]:

Rephrase so it's clear that other specs might do that in the future (see #312)

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [1505]:

remove now unneeded reference to ticker 312 (permanent variant of 307) (see #312)

comment:7 Changed 6 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 6 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 6 years ago by mnot@…

  • Priority changed from easy to later

Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

Proposed patch (pointing at status code 308)

comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [1614]:

Note existence of status 308 (see #312)

comment:12 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Status changed from new to closed

comment:13 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 20

comment:14 Changed 6 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution incorporated deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

comment:15 Changed 6 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from reopened to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.