W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Entities

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:40:29 -0600 (MDT)
To: Kim Horne <kim@pookzilla.com>
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0208181430480.19667-100000@measurement-factory.com>

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Kim Horne wrote:

> Larry Masinter wrote:
> >>"A message-body MUST NOT be included in a request if the specification
> >>of the request method (section 5.1.1) does not allow sending an
> >>entity-body in requests."
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/BeforeLastCall.html
> > issue 119 "MESSAGE-BODY",
> > and thread started with
> > http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1997q3/0393.html

The discussion at the above URL implies that some part of the RFC
prohibits bodies for GETs. Could anybody point to that part? I do not
see anything prohibiting bodies in Section 9.3 "GET".

> The reason I brought this up was because I was running into a
> problem where a piece of client software was adding a
> "Content-Length: 0" header to all GET requests it sent.  All the
> webservers that I tried it on completed the requests without
> complaint but when a (transparent) squid proxy was added into the
> mix it stopped working (with a 411 response code, of all things).
> I wasn't sure which end of the problem I should fix.

Hmm.. I am surprised you are sure now, but perhaps I am missing
something in the RFC that the above URLs helped you find. To me, it
still looks like the RFC does not prohibit (and, hence, allows) bodies
for GETs. Please clarify.

Thanks,

Alex.

-- 
                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Sunday, 18 August 2002 16:40:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:19 GMT