Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02

Bjoern Hoehrmann <> Sat, 14 January 2012 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E0321F84F1 for <>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 07:49:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.047
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_92=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Afkz1mumbwgG for <>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 07:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id C24F821F84EA for <>; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 07:49:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2012 15:48:53 -0000
Received: from (EHLO HIVE) [] by (mp008) with SMTP; 14 Jan 2012 16:48:53 +0100
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+qaQ4pyDSqCRJGowN5JhFXMsVugIOq6MhWaGGpuP UL0176mVuzldsJ
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
To: Julian Reschke <>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:59 +0100
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>, IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:49:07 -0000

* Julian Reschke wrote:
>- what's the problem with the title?

When the redirect target disappears but the redirect does not, then you
might end up with "Permanent Redirect" as title in search results which
looks very broken and is uninformative. A better title would be "Moved 
to <new location>".

>- why do I need to specify encoding? It's all US-ASCII

Because RFC 2854 says it's strongly recommended to use the parameter.

>- says it's happy once I had the HTML4 strict doctype; 
>would that work for you?

I can live with that.

>The RFC Editor rewrites this part upon publication.

Or forgets to do so and you forget to check and we end up with bad text.

>> I think you need a better term for "permanent URI". How about simply re-
>> moving the "permanent" and possibly adding "new" to the second instance?
>I'd prefer to use language consistent with RFC 2616.

Well, in RFC 2616 it makes a little bit more sense as there you have the
contrast with temporary addresses, but "permanent" is the condition that
the resource has a different address than the current one, but that does
not mean the new address will be "permanent". But oh well, your argument
is good enough.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·