Should the HTTP Method change when following a 303 redirect ?
"Pof Magicfingers (Giovanni Olivera)" <pof@pof.pm> Wed, 22 April 2020 10:44 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE0003A0063 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 03:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oFEgsTg_Bst5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 03:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 481563A005F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 03:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jRCpA-0003YJ-Of for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:41:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:41:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jRCpA-0003YJ-Of@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <pofmagicfingers@gmail.com>) id 1jRCp9-0003X3-K1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:41:47 +0000
Received: from mail-il1-f180.google.com ([209.85.166.180]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <pofmagicfingers@gmail.com>) id 1jRCp8-0001Gf-0y for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:41:47 +0000
Received: by mail-il1-f180.google.com with SMTP id u189so1384555ilc.4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 03:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=aihO1AruxsuMnMBPiTvGbWUCVoSDJGW+XlY5y0wr96o=; b=qKVw522BTAnjl2zpZ5alKZ/46iyOZ2UtLW5Tz23Az+4uqVMtfJ5W2JPR2KZesj83j1 RwIdxw+0LoawUeBCk5wn4kUCZk/YIpgkRlu3+N/E1q3+irlmKRxKbIEkRJPx1ZudK6kz 8uVUHT35XWWgh4xG2zzwQrJFPHCuDCGPaxfFqcb6pPvQfNxi1Wn/29xwXQRc9ANK30bt Pfp5ZEpJfkcEOIx0HGZZY85qg5aN8WOfQh+TKRpW8sWFnnFq5SjKG87cxl8SmcGrxJgC LgNnqN/O22Dj2sr8q/EZK+X5ehjBMLCdtx1/GZsX5kam8ClT/B022vQZiiN46rvWbXvH 8UyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuY1XlpAGxtQQWI/gbmn+8veeVzvCnXOkLkOWwD6eU9r3Mx+t3dW o2aK7EX1armD9sqHcyU5JwSEglx4pcF+HcFAq0NtVkJ7
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJF6XQ3vWtYoEx2CUGUyNqaZ/yL0YggyF8SH9/u0YHKY9zvLcbqYjIJNqcojUdg4FSmxow9mztAF+I5rFMhalY=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:af1d:: with SMTP id n29mr24552739ili.306.1587552094846; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 03:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Pof Magicfingers (Giovanni Olivera)" <pof@pof.pm>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:41:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMMwswmbL03nSjXbqrDaFjqeS3Ti5CoUx6Gb9gh7uPytqPPSHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ad05da05a3dec61a"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.166.180; envelope-from=pofmagicfingers@gmail.com; helo=mail-il1-f180.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1jRCp8-0001Gf-0y b703c589cf76e13d514f7e056569cbdd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Should the HTTP Method change when following a 303 redirect ?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAMMwswmbL03nSjXbqrDaFjqeS3Ti5CoUx6Gb9gh7uPytqPPSHg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37536
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi everyone, I'm reaching out to you to clarify what behavior is expected regarding a 303 redirect. I'm currently discussing about this with the cURL team, and we're not really sure if a user agent SHOULD or MAY change the HTTP method to GET or HEAD when following a 303 redirect. You can read the discussion here : https://github.com/curl/curl/issues/5237 Reading RFC7231 at section-6.4.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.4>, it states that : > A user agent can perform a retrieval request targeting that URI (a GET or HEAD request if using HTTP) > [...] > This status code is applicable to any HTTP method. But it seems unclear if the user agent SHOULD use a GET method when following the redirect, regardless of the current method used, for a 303 redirect, of it should keep the current method used for the request inducing that redirect. Could you help us determine what behavior should be followed in such case ? Thanks ! Best Regards, Giovanni «Pof Magicfingers» Olivera
- Should the HTTP Method change when following a 30… Pof Magicfingers (Giovanni Olivera)
- Re: Should the HTTP Method change when following … Amos Jeffries
- Re: Should the HTTP Method change when following … Pof Magicfingers (Giovanni Olivera)