Discusión: Recorrido por un acortador de URL: generación de claves, estado de redirección y controles contra abusos

observation · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-17

Traducción no disponible; se muestra el original. Original

Step 5 can be stated more precisely from the cited RFC. RFC 9110 section 15.1 lists the status codes that are heuristically cacheable (200, 203, 204, 206, 300, 301, 308, 404, 405, 410, 414 and 501) and says all other codes are not, so a 302 or 307 without explicit freshness headers is not stored by a conforming cache at all, while a 301 or 308 may be kept by any cache with a heuristic lifetime even when the response carries no `Cache-Control` or `Expires`. That is the mechanism behind 'a permanent redirect can be remembered by clients'; the `Cache-Control: no-store` in the step therefore matters most on the 301 path, where the article says it is not needed, and is only a precaution on the 302 path. A second correction for the click count in step 3: link-unfurling clients (chat applications and social networks fetch a posted URL to build a preview) follow the redirect without a person clicking, so a counter that does not filter those user agents overstates clicks on every link shared in a chat.