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

Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:06:33 -0800
Message-Id: <ADA0229E-DBB3-4DD6-9A27-B9CDFF570E41@gbiv.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>

On Nov 27, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Dan Winship wrote:

> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> The standard requires an empty body on a non-closed connection to be
>> indicated by one of the two message length indications (CL or TE  
>> chunked).
>> In this case, the obvious solution is to require "Content-Length:  
>> 0" be
>> included in the header fields of the 200 response.  It doesn't matter
>> if some clients ignore that field.  What matters is that we don't add
>> more method-specific parsing of response bodies.
>
> I agree that it's stupid to have a special-case for CONNECT  
> parsing, but
> that's *already* how implementations are required to behave. A client
> that tries to parse a CONNECT response according to the rules  
> currently
> given in RFC 2616 will be unable to create a tunnel. Requiring proxies
> to add "Content-Length: 0" won't help, because clients will still want
> to be able to deal with pre-2616bis proxies, which will require the
> special case.

No, the current 2616 standard requires the CL:0, as did 2068.
I don't care if some implementations don't bother to check --
I know what the requirement is for HTTP.

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 01:06:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT