Re: 301/302

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John Franks: "Re: Last-Modified in chunked footer"
• Previous message: Henry Sanders: "RE: Last-Modified in chunked footer"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: 301/302"
• Next in thread: David W. Morris: "Re: 301/302"

Larry Masinter:
>
>>   I strongly agree with the 307 proposal cited above.  It is most
>>   unfair to those who have made the effort to read and understand the
>>   specifications to change them now by swapping the codes, even if
>>   there is time for them to recover (which we cannot know in any
>>   case).
>
>I don't think it is a good policy to make technical decisions on the
>grounds of whether or not the decision is 'unfair' to one or another
>group of implementors.

I strongly disagree.  Being fair to early implementers is a very valid
consideration.  Without early implementers, the IETF cannot develop
standards, so we had better maintain good relations with them.

>[...] while the case for "swap 302/303" has been stronger.

I do not consider the `less cruft' case for swapping 302/303 to be very
strong.

All in all, having heard the feedback from early implementers, I am
now in favour of going for the 307 solution.

Koen.

• Next message: John Franks: "Re: Last-Modified in chunked footer"
• Previous message: Henry Sanders: "RE: Last-Modified in chunked footer"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: 301/302"
• Next in thread: David W. Morris: "Re: 301/302"