Default HTTPS redirect to 301

[abea]

This would be for the --redirect-to-https=true flag. Given this is a utility would that be a BC break? I can imagine edge cases.

@austinstarin brought this up in P'unk Slack today. At least this should be an option to pass. No reason I can see why an HTTP to HTTPS redirect should be temporary these days.

[bgantick]

We could add a flag for permanent: http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_rewrite_module.html#rewrite

no bc break required

[boutell]

A flag would make sense.

…

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Brian Gantick ***@***.***> wrote: We could add a flag for permanent: http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ ngx_http_rewrite_module.html#rewrite no bc break required — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#13 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB9fZ4xC3g-OB8EAMDEZNCGcG1uh-Kkks5uMxQOgaJpZM4Vsc-R> .

-- *THOMAS BOUTELL, CHIEF SOFTWARE ARCHITECT* P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

[houmark]

I agree that this should be a permanent redirect. I don't think the user needs to be able to configure if this is temporary or permanent.

If this is considered a bc break, hmmm, per definition yes, but one can also argue that it was a bug, as the correct redirect would be permanent, and side effects (once you go https it's damn hard to go back to non-https)? Can anyone think of any any side effects that it will now start doing it correct?

[boutell]

I'm sold that it should be a 301.

…

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:27 PM, houmark ***@***.***> wrote: I agree that this should be a permanent redirect. I don't think the user needs to be able to configure if this is temporary or permanent. If this is considered a bc break, hmmm, per definition yes, but one can also argue that it was a bug, as the correct redirect would be permanent, and side effects (once you go https it's damn hard to go back to non-https)? Can anyone think of any any side effects that it will now start doing it correct? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#13 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB9fYLJvRa8kUDlCHgSh1nLIvnKecnPks5uPjLngaJpZM4Vsc-R> .

-- *THOMAS BOUTELL, CHIEF SOFTWARE ARCHITECT* P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

[boutell]

i.e. that it is not a bc break.

…

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Tom Boutell ***@***.***> wrote: I'm sold that it should be a 301. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:27 PM, houmark ***@***.***> wrote: > I agree that this should be a permanent redirect. I don't think the user > needs to be able to configure if this is temporary or permanent. > > If this is considered a bc break, hmmm, per definition yes, but one can > also argue that it was a bug, as the correct redirect would be permanent, > and side effects (once you go https it's damn hard to go back to > non-https)? Can anyone think of any any side effects that it will now start > doing it correct? > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#13 (comment)>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB9fYLJvRa8kUDlCHgSh1nLIvnKecnPks5uPjLngaJpZM4Vsc-R> > . > -- *THOMAS BOUTELL, CHIEF SOFTWARE ARCHITECT* P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

-- *THOMAS BOUTELL, CHIEF SOFTWARE ARCHITECT* P'UNK AVENUE | (215) 755-1330 | punkave.com

[boutell]

Actually this should be a flag. If you think you're ready to generate a cert, but you're mistaken, then you're in a world of hurt if you can't change your mind about this until it's proven solid.