draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt   draft-reschke-http-status-308-latest.txt 
Network Working Group J. Reschke Network Working Group J. Reschke
Internet-Draft greenbytes Internet-Draft greenbytes
Intended status: Experimental February 14, 2012 Intended status: Experimental April 17, 2014
Expires: August 17, 2012 Expires: October 19, 2014
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent
Redirect) Redirect)
draft-reschke-http-status-308-05 draft-reschke-http-status-308-latest
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the additional HyperText Transfer Protocol This document specifies the additional HyperText Transfer Protocol
(HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect). (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect).
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Although this is not a Distribution of this document is unlimited. Although this is not a
work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. 308 Permanent Redirect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. 308 Permanent Redirect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor Appendix A. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor
before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B.1. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-00 . . . . . . . . . . 6 B.1. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-00 . . . . . . . . . . 7
B.2. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-01 . . . . . . . . . . 6 B.2. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-01 . . . . . . . . . . 7
B.3. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 . . . . . . . . . . 7 B.3. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 . . . . . . . . . . 7
B.4. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-03 . . . . . . . . . . 7 B.4. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-03 . . . . . . . . . . 7
B.5. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-04 . . . . . . . . . . 7 B.5. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-04 . . . . . . . . . . 7
B.6. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-05 . . . . . . . . . . 8
B.7. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-06 . . . . . . . . . . 8
B.8. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-07 . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor
before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C.1. missingconsiderations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 C.1. consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix D. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to Appendix D. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
D.1. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D.1. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
HTTP defines a set of status codes for the purpose of redirecting a HTTP defines a set of status codes for the purpose of redirecting a
request to a different URI ([RFC3986]). The history of these status request to a different URI ([RFC3986]). The history of these status
codes is summarized in Section 7.3 of codes is summarized in Section 6.4 of
[draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], which also classifies the existing [draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], which also classifies the existing
status codes into four categories. status codes into four categories.
The first of these categories contains the status codes 301 (Moved The first of these categories contains the status codes 301 (Moved
Permanently), 302 (Found), and 307 (Temporary Redirect), which can be Permanently), 302 (Found), and 307 (Temporary Redirect), which can be
classified as below: classified as below:
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ +-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| | Permanent | Temporary | | | Permanent | Temporary |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ +-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| Allows changing the request method from | 301 | 302 | | Allows changing the request method from | 301 | 302 |
| POST to GET | | | | POST to GET | | |
| Does not allow changing the request | - | 307 | | Does not allow changing the request | - | 307 |
| method from POST to GET | | | | method from POST to GET | | |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ +-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
Section 7.3.8 of [draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] states that HTTP Section 6.4.7 of [draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] states that HTTP
does not define a permanent variant of status code 307; this does not define a permanent variant of status code 307; this
specification adds the status code 308, defining this missing variant specification adds the status code 308, defining this missing variant
(Section 3). (Section 3).
2. Notational Conventions 2. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. 308 Permanent Redirect 3. 308 Permanent Redirect
The target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target
future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future
URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs.
re-link references to the effective request URI (Section 4.3 of Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link
references to the effective request URI (Section 5.5 of
[draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]) to one or more of the new [draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]) to one or more of the new
references returned by the server, where possible. references sent by the server, where possible.
Caches MAY use a heuristic (see [draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache], The server SHOULD generate a Location header field
Section 2.3.1.1) to determine freshness for 308 responses. ([draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], Section 7.1.2) in the response
containing a preferred URI reference for the new permanent URI. The
user agent MAY use the Location field value for automatic
redirection. The server's response payload usually contains a short
hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s).
The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the A 308 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise
response ([draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], Section 9.5). A indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see
response payload can contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink [draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache], Section 4.2.2).
to the new URI(s).
Note: This status code is similar to 301 (Moved Permanently)
([draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], Section 6.4.2), except that it
does not allow changing the request method from POST to GET.
4. Deployment Considerations 4. Deployment Considerations
Section 4 of [draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] requires recipients to Section 6 of [draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] requires recipients to
treat unknown 3xx status codes the same way as status code 300 treat unknown 3xx status codes the same way as status code 300
Multiple Choices ([draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], Section 7.3.1). Multiple Choices ([draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], Section 6.4.1).
Thus, servers will not be able to rely on automatic redirection Thus, servers will not be able to rely on automatic redirection
happening similar to status codes 301, 302, or 307. happening similar to status codes 301, 302, or 307.
Therefore, initial use of status code 308 will be restricted to cases Therefore, initial use of status code 308 will be restricted to cases
where the server has sufficient confidence in the clients where the server has sufficient confidence in the clients
understanding the new code, or when a fallback to the semantics of understanding the new code, or when a fallback to the semantics of
status code 300 is not problematic. 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 both hard to maintain and hard to debug code
and would also require special attention to caching (i.e., setting a
"Vary" response header field, as defined in Section 7.1.4 of
[draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics]).
Note that many existing HTML-based user agents will emulate a refresh Note that many existing HTML-based user agents will emulate a refresh
when encountering an HTML <meta> refresh directive. This can be used when encountering an HTML <meta> refresh directive ([HTML]). This
as another fallback. For example: can be used as another fallback. For example:
Client request: Client request:
GET / HTTP/1.1 GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com Host: example.com
Server response: Server response:
HTTP/1.1 308 Permanent Redirect HTTP/1.1 308 Permanent Redirect
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
skipping to change at page 5, line 8 skipping to change at page 5, line 32
The document has been moved to The document has been moved to
<a href="http://example.com/new" <a href="http://example.com/new"
>http://example.com/new</a>. >http://example.com/new</a>.
</p> </p>
</body> </body>
</html> </html>
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
All security considerations that apply to HTTP redirects apply to the All security considerations that apply to HTTP redirects apply to the
308 status code as well (see Section 11 of 308 status code as well (see Section 9 of
[draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics]). [draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics]).
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
The registration below shall be added to the HTTP Status Code The registration below shall be added to the HTTP Status Code
Registry (defined in Section 4.2 of [draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] Registry (defined in Section 8.2 of [draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics]
and located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>): and located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>):
+-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+ +-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+ +-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+
| 308 | Permanent Redirect | Section 3 of this specification | | 308 | Permanent Redirect | Section 3 of this specification |
+-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+ +-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The definition for the new status code 308 re-uses text from the The definition for the new status code 308 re-uses text from the
HTTP/1.1 definitions of status codes 301 and 307. HTTP/1.1 definitions of status codes 301 and 307.
Furthermore, thanks to Cyrus Daboo, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Subramanian Furthermore, thanks to Ben Campbell, Cyrus Daboo, Eran Hammer-Lahav,
Moonesamy, and Peter Saint-Andre for feedback on this document. Bjoern Hoehrmann, Subramanian Moonesamy, Peter Saint-Andre, and
Robert Sparks for feedback on this document.
8. Normative References 8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in
RFCs to Indicate Requirement RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
March 1997. March 1997.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and
L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
[draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., [draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke,
Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and
Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Routing",
Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26
Connections, and Message Parsing", (work in progress), February 2014.
draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18
(work in progress), January 2012.
[draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., [draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke,
Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and
Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Content",
Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26
Semantics", (work in progress), February 2014.
draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18
(work in progress), January 2012.
[draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., [draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M.,
Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter,
L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T.,
Lafon, Y., Ed., Nottingham, M.,
Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
"HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching", "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-18 (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
(work in progress), January 2012. draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-26
(work in progress), February 2014.
8.2. Informative References
[HTML] Raggett, D., Le Hors, A., and I.
Jacobs, "HTML 4.01 Specification",
W3C Recommendation REC-html401-
19991224, December 1999, <http://
www.w3.org/TR/1999/
REC-html401-19991224>.
Latest version available at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401>.
URIs
[1] <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org> [1] <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
[2] <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe> [2] <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe>
Appendix A. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix A. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) publication)
Chrome: Feature requested in Chromium Issue 109012 Chrome: Feature requested in Chromium Issue 109012
(<http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=109012>). (<http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=109012>).
Curl (the library): no change was needed (test case: Curl (the library): no change was needed (test case:
<https://github.com/bagder/curl/blob/master/tests/data/test1325>). <https://github.com/bagder/curl/blob/master/tests/data/test1325>).
Firefox: Feature requested in Bugzilla bug 714302 Firefox: implemented as of Firefox 14 (see
(<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714302>), patch <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714302>).
available.
Safari: automatically redirects 3xx status codes when a Location Safari: automatically redirects 3xx status codes when a Location
header field is present, but does not preserve the request method. header field is present, but does not preserve the request method.
Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
B.1. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-00 B.1. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-00
Updated HTTPbis reference. Added Appendix A. Added and resolved Updated HTTPbis reference. Added Appendix A. Added and resolved
issue "refresh". issue "refresh".
skipping to change at page 7, line 20 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
B.4. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-03 B.4. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-03
Added and resolved issue "uaconfirm". Added and resolved issue "uaconfirm".
B.5. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-04 B.5. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-04
Added and resolved issue "missingconsiderations". Added request Added and resolved issue "missingconsiderations". Added request
message to example. Updated the Safari implementation note. message to example. Updated the Safari implementation note.
B.6. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-05
Add informative HTML reference. Update HTTPbis references.
B.7. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-06
Added and resolved issues "consistency307" and "sniffing". Updated
Firefox implementation status.
B.8. Since draft-reschke-http-status-308-07
Update HTTPbis references. Update Firefox implementation status.
Added and resolved issue "consistency".
Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) publication)
Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this
document. document.
C.1. missingconsiderations C.1. consistency
In Section 3: In Section 3:
Type: change Type: change
stpeter@stpeter.im (2012-02-10): According to HTTPbis Part 2, need to julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2013-10-03): This text was written to
explain the request conditions, interactions with response headers, be consistent with the other redirect definitions in the httpbis
and implications for caches. If certain default behavior is assumed, spec; back when -19 was current. It needs to be updated to be
it would be good to make that explicit. consistent with what gets approved.
Resolution (2012-02-13): Added missing caching considerations. Resolution: Done.
Appendix D. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to Appendix D. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
publication) publication)
D.1. edit D.1. edit
Type: edit Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2011-04-15): Umbrella issue for julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2011-04-15): Umbrella issue for
editorial fixes/enhancements. editorial fixes/enhancements.
 End of changes. 33 change blocks. 
69 lines changed or deleted 112 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/