* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Ticket #312 (closed design: fixed)

Opened 3 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

should there be a permanent variant of 307

Reported by: julian.reschke@gmx.de Owned by: julian.reschke@gmx.de
Priority: later Milestone: 20
Component: p2-semantics Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:
Origin:

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

312.diff (989 bytes) - added by julian.reschke@gmx.de 3 years ago.
Proposed patch
312.2.diff (1.8 KB) - added by julian.reschke@gmx.de 3 years ago.
Proposed patch (pointing at status code 308)

Change History

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

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

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 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution wontfix deleted

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 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

Proposed patch

comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [1474]:

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

comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

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

comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [1475]:

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

comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [1505]:

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

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

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution incorporated deleted

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 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Owner changed from draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@tools.ietf.org to julian.reschke@gmx.de
  • Priority changed from normal to easy
  • Status changed from reopened to new
  • Milestone changed from 18 to unassigned

comment:9 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Priority changed from easy to later

comment:10 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

Proposed patch (pointing at status code 308)

comment:11 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [1614]:

Note existence of status 308 (see #312)

comment:12 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

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

comment:13 Changed 3 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 20

comment:14 Changed 2 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution incorporated deleted

comment:15 Changed 2 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

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