W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

RE: i93: Repeating Single-value headers

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:23:37 -0800
To: "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "'Henrik Nordström'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002401c84d85$bd030520$37090f60$@org>

> >> I would like us to formulate some guideline beyond the charter when
> >> handling of specific errors is considered in scope of this group's
> >> deliverables (so we would consider adding text pointing out the mis-
> >> behavior, or making recommendations how to handle it). There are
> >> some known cases where errors are common in practise and affect e.g.
> >> efficiency (such as sending malformed If-Modified-Since headers),

In general, defining how one party should respond to invalid values sent by
another party is difficult, because the appropriate behavior is likely to be
context dependent -- is HTTP being used by a browser, a transport for SOAP
protocol messages, or some other application?

I would urge the working group *not* to try to mandate MUST-required
behavior when receiving invalid input -- it turns the "invalid" input into
part of the protocol. It's likely that there are places where, for security
or stability reasons, MUST (or SHOULD) requirements to respond with an error
reply would make sense, but in any case, don't take it on as a specific
charter item.

Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2008 21:23:56 UTC

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