prefer 307 to 302?
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
doc: Protocol
topic: resource access
- Dominant language
- HTML
- Stars
- 563
- Forks
- 108
- Avg merge
- 4d 13h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
HTTP 307 says it's like a 302 but doesn't allow the client to turn a POST to a GET. Does anyone know the use cases for this? If not, should we prefer 307 (apart from the obvious more specific temporary nature). Both 301 and 302 say you should use 308 and 307 if you don't want this behavior.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading RFC 7231 section 6.4.7 and compare its 307 guidance with the 301 and 302 behavior described in the issue. Determine whether the specification should prefer 307, identify the relevant specification text to revise, and document the decision and its rationale.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation, networking
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 15/100