It sounds like you're well-marinated in standards bodies, and that's a good thing -- it's tough, often thankless work that someone needs to do.
For the rest of us, the language from OP sure sounds like it's saying, "yeah do whatevs with 301, we give up".
People often read RFCs in a hurry. Wouldn't this be a great place to use the a "SHOULD NOT" (change the request method)?
If you're saying "MUST NOT" would be bad because the horse is out of the barn, I understand. But the draft language now sure sounds like "MAY", and the OP has a good point that it's likely to encourage more wrong behavior, not less.
At least IMHO. Again, I am not a standards lawyer, so please take this feedback accordingly.
For the rest of us, the language from OP sure sounds like it's saying, "yeah do whatevs with 301, we give up".
People often read RFCs in a hurry. Wouldn't this be a great place to use the a "SHOULD NOT" (change the request method)?
If you're saying "MUST NOT" would be bad because the horse is out of the barn, I understand. But the draft language now sure sounds like "MAY", and the OP has a good point that it's likely to encourage more wrong behavior, not less.
At least IMHO. Again, I am not a standards lawyer, so please take this feedback accordingly.