Mike Bishop <[email protected]> wrote: > Apologies — I think I dropped the ball on getting back to you about > this one. The PR looks good, modulo text about handling of other > redirect codes.
> I'm used to 201+Location to refer to a *unique* place that should be
polled
> (GET,HEAD,If-*) to get the result. But, at each step, Cloud Register X
does
> not know what the unique URL for Cloud Register X+1 would be.
> 307 seems the correct answer to me. Go *THERE* and do a POST.
MB> Using 307 for your expected flow is fine. You still need to specify
MB> what should happen with other status codes, since HTTP in general
MB> (intermediaries, etc.) might still encounter them in the wild.
It's HTTPS, so there are not really any unknown/authorized intermediaries.
There is a concern with captive portals, but they do a forced proxy and
certificate failure before they can send a 3xx.
The rest of the 3xx redirects would mostly seem to be invalid.
If they redirect within the same authority, I guess that's fine.
If they redirect to another authority, it would be mostly wrong.
Is a single sentence saying the above what you are looking for?
>> {
>> Note that we avoided 418. We really wanted to :-)
>> Well, technically it would have been: "You are teapot"
>> }
MB> Maybe the pledge could use it from its management interface. One
MB> of the few areas of the IETF that could realistically specify a use for
MB> 418!
> NO SIR! I can also Brew expresso-sized Cappacinos!
> (as the machines in Madrid seemed to be...)
Saw this video today on the TV during lunchtime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqsEa1P8iPQ
Henk did not cover 451, which everyone felt he should have.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
