W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1998

Re: IPP> Chunked POST

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:03:24 -0800
To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Cc: mcmanus@appliedtheory.com, CGI-WG@golux.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, ipp@pwg.org
Message-Id: <9812172203.aa01559@paris.ics.uci.edu>
>In my opinion, Ken Coar is correct in saying that for a server to
>be *both* HTTP/1.1 compliant and CGI/1.1 compliant it MUST buffer 
>chunked POST data and provide a Content-Length for the CGI script.

Sending 411 is HTTP/1.1 compliant.  Failure to parse the chunked
encoding (and puking) would be non-compliance, but requiring a
content-length for a given resource is necessary for many reasons
(DoS and legacy system protection).

>My recollection is that some servers chose not to be completely 
>CGI/1.1 compliant to avoid the buffering.  The 411 header was a
>way to be HTTP/1.1 compliant and indicate their rejection of 
>chunked POST data.
>
>For example, I have heard that Apache rejects chunked POST data,
>but I have not personally verified this.

Right, the default mod_cgi distributed with Apache will respond with
411 because it assumes the CGI is dumb.  The core of Apache does support
chunked reading, so one could always write a module that reads chunked,
but CGI requires a content-length before the script is execed.
A module that does limited-size buffering before handing over to the CGI
script has been on my Apache to-do list for a long time (over a year).

....Roy
Received on Friday, 18 December 1998 06:05:28 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:26 EDT