prefer 307 to 302?

[ericprud]

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.

[csarven]

301->308 in particular conflicts with the definition in RFC 7231 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.3 where it suggests 307 instead. 302->307 seems okay. Having said that, RFC 7238 is sort of an update on RFC 7231 to use 308 instead of 301 if method change is not desired. Slightly confusing but workable. [A bit of the history on these status codes is captured here: http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2014/02/http-308-incompetence-expected.html ]

When I suggested this I was thinking of two areas of use: http 301/302s to https or location of (an inbox) container changing.. and if the original request is a POST, I'd still like it to go through (I think).

Let's thread carefully and not introduce more mess. Are we overlooking anything?

The spec could suggest that servers should use 307/308 if containers are relocated. While it is equally important for non-containers, POST is used to a great extent on containers.