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

Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body

From: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 18:32:09 +0100
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20071208173208.GX1872@polar.elf12.net>

On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 02:16:33PM +1300, Adrien de Croy wrote:

> that post does, but if you follow the thread through, Roy spells out 
> clearly what the requirements are, that being that message parsing 
> should not be dependent on the method, and that therefore (except for 
> HEAD response for legacy reasons), one should not assume that any 
> message (request or response) may not have an entity body.  If any 
> message is to have an entity body, it must have a non-zero 
> Content-Length header, or a Transfer-Encoding header.
> This is required for extensibility - the ability of existing 
> infrastructure to deal with new methods, which may or may not need to 
> use entity bodies in requests.
> This is also why there's an explicit requirement for proxies to forward 
> unknown methods (depending on admin policy of course, but must be 
> capable of doing it).

1) Where exactly did you find anything explicit for unknown methods? 
   Especially a forward-must...
2) It would be new to me that the spec does force an implementation to 
   contain code for something that can perfectly be switched off.
   Where does the spec require such a useless thing?

Received on Saturday, 8 December 2007 17:31:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC