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

Ticket #140 (closed editorial: fixed)

Opened 7 years ago

Last modified 4 years ago

update note citing RFC 1945 and 2068

Reported by: julian.reschke@gmx.de Owned by: julian.reschke@gmx.de
Priority: normal Milestone: 08
Component: p2-semantics Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:


Part2 notes about status 302:

"Note: [RFC1945] and [RFC2068] specify that the client is not allowed to change the method on the redirected request. However, most existing user agent implementations treat 302 as if it were a 303 response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless of the original request method. The status codes 303 and 307 have been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear which kind of reaction is expected of the client."

This needs to be rephrased in terms of RFC2616 instead of RFC2068 (I think).


i140.diff (2.5 KB) - added by julian.reschke@gmx.de 7 years ago.
Proposed patch.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Owner set to julian.reschke@gmx.de
  • Status changed from new to assigned
  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 08

Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

Proposed patch.

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Status changed from assigned to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

Fixed in [614]:

Resolve #140: rephrase note so that it becomes clear that the described change already happened in RFC2616, also add 303/307 to the "changes from RFC2068" section (closes #140)

comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Priority set to normal
  • Severity changed from Candidate WG Document to Active WG Document
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.