The main purpose of using 202 instead of 200 is for a server to communicate to a client: "From what I can tell, the request looks good. However, we haven't fully dealt with your request yet and we aren't 100% certain it's going to succeed". So if someone does a request, the server immediately responds and then forwards the request elsewhere, a 202 makes sense to me. If the request fails at the ...
HTTP Status code 202 vs 200 for a POST request - Stack Overflow
I think that your solution is fine, the Http status 202 is the proper response to use in this specific case indicating that the request has been accepted for processing, but the processing has not been completed. What I would slightly change in your workflow are the Http status of the subsequent requests. As you said, the 202 response should return a Location header specifying the URL that ...
Otherwise, a 202 "Accepted" status code is returned, and the client must poll the resource until the final representation is available. The reason for this behavior is the following: If a result is available within a few seconds, it needs to be retrieved as soon as possible; otherwise, when it becomes available is not important.
Is it wrong to return 202 "Accepted" in response to HTTP GET?
What is the appropriate way of giving an estimate for request completion when the server returns a 202 - Accepted status code for asynchronous requests? From the HTTP spec (italics added by me): 202
HTTP Status 202 - how to provide information about async request ...