Improve language around handling redirects

[garethsb]

Adding this as an issue here but with the expectation that https://github.com/orgs/AMWA-TV/teams/nmos-architecture-review will move it somewhere more general.

IS-04 and IS-05 say things like:

For Controllers performing GET and HEAD requests, using these methods SHOULD correctly handle a 301 (Moved Permanently) response.

When a 301 is supported, the Controller MUST follow the redirect in order to retrieve the required response payload.

E.g. at https://github.com/AMWA-TV/is-05/blob/v1.1.x/docs/APIs.md#get-and-head-requests

This seems like strange conformance language: "SHOULD handle a 301 [and if it does] MUST follow the redirect".

At least automated test cases seem possible...

[garethsb]

Summarizing @AMWA-TV/nmos-architecture-review Slack thread:

I'm slightly wary of putting "automatically follow" since best practice is probably not to follow HTTPS -> HTTP, to give up if you get stuck in a loop, etc. So maybe the simplest thing is just to delete the second sentence with the MUST and leave it as "correctly handle"? E.g. see the Remarks section in HttpClientHandler.AllowAutoRedirect Property (System.Net.Http)

But what does "correctly handle" imply? That your application doesn't explode?

The obvious spec reference would be RFC7231 But that only says "The user agent MAY use the Location field value for automatic redirection"

[peterbrightwell]

Architecture Review Group review: place on backlog

[cristian-recoseanu]

Is the change as simple as merging the two sentences:

Clients performing requests using these methods SHOULD correctly handle a 301 (Moved Permanently) response by following the redirect in order to retrieve the response payload.

This gets rid of the second MUST which was conditional and weakened by the preceeding SHOULD.