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.

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.

   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

   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 |
   +-------+--------------------+---------------------------------+

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>.

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/