W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: i19 - bodies on GET -- round 2

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:50:18 +1000
Message-Id: <8200C00F-3E99-4935-BF33-033C4B7CB4F7@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Are you saying that "ignore" might encompass things like parsing for  
message delimitation, etc., thereby spoiling the connection,  
effectively?

Do you have a suggestion? Is it as easy as changing it to "ignore the  
contents of the message-body..." in both instances?

Cheers,


On 15/05/2007, at 7:24 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> ...
>> * Replacing the last sentence with: [[[  When a request message  
>> contains both a message-body of non-zero length and a method that  
>> does not define any semantics for that request message-body, then  
>> an origin server SHOULD either ignore the message-body or respond  
>> with an appropriate error message (e.g., 413).  A proxy or  
>> gateway, when presented the same request, SHOULD either forward  
>> the request inbound with the message-body or ignore the message- 
>> body when determining a response. ]]], as per [2]
>> 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/64972E13-483B-4F69-94FD- 
>> F2EE516286A8@mnot.net
>> 2. http://www.w3.org/mid/9C43F5AB-C3D7-4584-8F12- 
>> A9F459D3817F@gbiv.com
> > ...
>
> I think "SHOULD ... ignore" could be misread as "treat as if not  
> there". But what we want is that the body *is* consumed, but then  
> the contents is ignored, right?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 02:50:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:09 GMT