--- 1/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc7238bis-01.txt 2015-01-14 01:14:33.799492323 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc7238bis-02.txt 2015-01-14 01:14:33.815492716 -0800 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ HTTPbis Working Group J. Reschke Internet-Draft greenbytes -Obsoletes: 7238 (if approved) September 16, 2014 +Obsoletes: 7238 (if approved) January 14, 2015 Intended status: Standards Track -Expires: March 20, 2015 +Expires: July 18, 2015 The Hypertext Transfer Protocol Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect) - draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc7238bis-01 + draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc7238bis-02 Abstract This document specifies the additional Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status code 308 (Permanent Redirect). Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. @@ -21,25 +21,25 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on March 20, 2015. + This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2015. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as @@ -71,23 +71,23 @@ +-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ | | Permanent | Temporary | +-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ | Allows changing the request method from | 301 | 302 | | POST to GET | | | | Does not allow changing the request | - | 307 | | method from POST to GET | | | +-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ - Section 6.4.7 of [RFC7231] states that HTTP does not define a - permanent variant of status code 307; this specification adds the - status code 308, defining this missing variant (Section 3). + Section 6.4.7 of [RFC7231] states that it does not define a permanent + variant of status code 307; this specification adds the status code + 308, defining this missing variant (Section 3). This specification contains no technical changes from the experimental RFC 7238, which it obsoletes. 2. Notational Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. @@ -116,49 +116,48 @@ the request method from POST to GET. 4. Deployment Considerations Section 6 of [RFC7231] requires recipients to treat unknown 3xx status codes the same way as status code 300 Multiple Choices ([RFC7231], Section 6.4.1). Thus, servers will not be able to rely on automatic redirection happening similar to status codes 301, 302, or 307. - Therefore, initial use of status code 308 will be restricted to cases - where the server has sufficient confidence in the client's - understanding the new code or when a fallback to the semantics of - status code 300 is not problematic. Server implementers are advised - not to vary the status code based on characteristics of the request, - such as the User-Agent header field ("User-Agent Sniffing") -- doing - so usually results in code that is both hard to maintain and hard to - debug and would also require special attention to caching (i.e., - setting a "Vary" response header field, as defined in Section 7.1.4 - of [RFC7231]). + Therefore, the use of status code 308 is restricted to cases where + the server has sufficient confidence in the client's understanding + the new code or when a fallback to the semantics of status code 300 + is not problematic. Server implementers are advised not to vary the + status code based on characteristics of the request, such as the + User-Agent header field ("User-Agent Sniffing") -- doing so usually + results in code that is both hard to maintain and hard to debug and + would also require special attention to caching (i.e., setting a + "Vary" response header field, as defined in Section 7.1.4 of + [RFC7231]). Note that many existing HTML-based user agents will emulate a refresh - when encountering an HTML refresh directive ([HTML]). This - can be used as another fallback. For example: + when encountering an HTML refresh directive ([HTML], Section + 4.2.5.3). This can be used as another fallback. For example: Client request: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Server response: HTTP/1.1 308 Permanent Redirect Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Location: http://example.com/new - Content-Length: 454 + Content-Length: 356 - + Permanent Redirect

The document has been moved to . + [HTML] Hickson, I., Berjon, R., Faulkner, S., Leithead, T., Doyle + Navara, E., O'Connor, E., and S. Pfeiffer, "HTML5", W3C + Recommendation REC-html5-20141028, October 2014, + . - Latest version available at - . + Latest version available at . Author's Address Julian F. Reschke greenbytes GmbH Hafenweg 16 Muenster, NW 48155 Germany EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de