summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7238.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7238.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc7238.txt339
1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7238.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7238.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3ec2ce8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7238.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Reschke
+Request for Comments: 7238 greenbytes
+Category: Experimental June 2014
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+ The Hypertext Transfer Protocol Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document specifies the additional Hypertext Transfer Protocol
+ (HTTP) status code 308 (Permanent Redirect).
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+ published for examination, experimental implementation, and
+ evaluation.
+
+ This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
+ community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
+ Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
+ community. It has received public review and has been approved for
+ publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
+ all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
+ Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+ Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+ and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+ http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7238.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2014 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
+ described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Reschke Experimental [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7238 HTTP Status Code 308 June 2014
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 3. 308 Permanent Redirect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ HTTP defines a set of status codes for the purpose of redirecting a
+ request to a different URI ([RFC3986]). The history of these status
+ codes is summarized in Section 6.4 of [RFC7231], which also
+ classifies the existing status codes into four categories.
+
+ The first of these categories contains the status codes 301 (Moved
+ Permanently), 302 (Found), and 307 (Temporary Redirect), which can be
+ classified as below:
+
+ +-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
+ | | 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).
+
+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].
+
+3. 308 Permanent Redirect
+
+ The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target
+ resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future
+ references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs.
+
+
+
+Reschke Experimental [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7238 HTTP Status Code 308 June 2014
+
+
+ Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link
+ references to the effective request URI (Section 5.5 of [RFC7230]) to
+ one or more of the new references sent by the server, where possible.
+
+ The server SHOULD generate a Location header field ([RFC7231],
+ 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).
+
+ A 308 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise
+ indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see
+ [RFC7234], Section 4.2.2).
+
+ Note: This status code is similar to 301 (Moved Permanently)
+ ([RFC7231], Section 6.4.2), except that it does not allow changing
+ 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]).
+
+ Note that many existing HTML-based user agents will emulate a refresh
+ when encountering an HTML <meta> refresh directive ([HTML]). This
+ can be used as another fallback. For example:
+
+ Client request:
+
+ GET / HTTP/1.1
+ Host: example.com
+
+
+
+
+
+Reschke Experimental [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7238 HTTP Status Code 308 June 2014
+
+
+ Server response:
+
+ HTTP/1.1 308 Permanent Redirect
+ Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
+ Location: http://example.com/new
+ Content-Length: 454
+
+ <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
+ <html>
+ <head>
+ <title>Permanent Redirect</title>
+ <meta http-equiv="refresh"
+ content="0; url=http://example.com/new">
+ </head>
+ <body>
+ <p>
+ The document has been moved to
+ <a href="http://example.com/new"
+ >http://example.com/new</a>.
+ </p>
+ </body>
+ </html>
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ All security considerations that apply to HTTP redirects apply to the
+ 308 status code as well (see Section 9 of [RFC7231]).
+
+6. IANA Considerations
+
+ The registration below has been added to the "Hypertext Transfer
+ Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry" (defined in Section 8.2 of
+ [RFC7231] and located at
+ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>):
+
+ +-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+
+ | Value | Description | Reference |
+ +-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+
+ | 308 | Permanent Redirect | Section 3 of this specification |
+ +-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Reschke Experimental [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7238 HTTP Status Code 308 June 2014
+
+
+7. Acknowledgements
+
+ The definition for the new status code 308 reuses text from the
+ HTTP/1.1 definitions of status codes 301 and 307.
+
+ Furthermore, thanks to Ben Campbell, Cyrus Daboo, Eran Hammer-Lahav,
+ Bjoern Hoehrmann, Subramanian Moonesamy, Peter Saint-Andre, and
+ Robert Sparks for feedback on this document.
+
+8. References
+
+8.1. Normative References
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
+ Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
+ RFC 3986, January 2005.
+
+ [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
+ Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
+ RFC 7230, June 2014.
+
+ [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
+ Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
+ June 2014.
+
+ [RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
+ Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
+ RFC 7234, June 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>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Reschke Experimental [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7238 HTTP Status Code 308 June 2014
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Julian F. Reschke
+ greenbytes GmbH
+ Hafenweg 16
+ Muenster, NW 48155
+ Germany
+
+ EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
+ URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Reschke Experimental [Page 6]
+