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

Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body [i19]

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:27:52 -0800 (PST)
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0801221924230.12077-100000@egate.xpasc.com>


Reviewing the update .... and considering the concern re. content length
of ZERO (which is probably equivalent to chunked encoding of no data),

I think it would be better to explicitly deal with the zero length case.

As in an empty request body is equivalent to no request body.

Dave Morris

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> Looks like there's consensus on this one. I've recorded it in Trac and
> set a milestone for -02.
>
>
> On 03/12/2007, at 4:48 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
>
> >
> > Ah, thanks Mark, I forgot about that discussion.
> >
> > IMO, the changes in your/Roy's proposal all impose requirements on
> > implementations, and/or assume that defining new methods or response
> > codes which cannot include an entity body is desirable.  I expect that
> > as long as the meaning of the message is clear, then little more need
> > be said.  And in order for the meaning to be clear, we just need to
> > say that entity bodies don't alter the meaning of the message envelope
> > around it (i.e. it can be ignored).
> >
> > However, that would be a pretty significant change that goes beyond
> > the constraints of the charter.  So I'm content with your proposal
> > because it does improve upon the current text.
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > On 11/30/07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >> Previous to this, the most recent proposal on this issue (#19):
> >>  <http://www.w3.org/mid/0B0A6372-C332-40A1-
> >> AF9D-252B8B1EF0BA@mnot.net>
> >>
> >> Not too much discussion happened then; do we need a new proposal?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 30/11/2007, at 7:29 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/30/07, Scott Nichol <snicholnews@scottnichol.com> wrote:
> >>>> The original portion of the spec I was questioning is
> >>>>
> >>>> <quote>
> >>>> The presence of a message-body in a request is signaled by the
> >>>> inclusion
> >>>> of a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header field in the
> >>>> request's
> >>>> message-headers. 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.
> >>>> </quote>
> >>>>
> >>>> If Roy says "HTTP allows a message body on any request", then why
> >>>> does
> >>>> the second sentence in the above even appear in the spec?
> >>>
> >>> Those aren't inconsistent, but I reckon trying to be prescriptive in
> >>> that way makes little sense as, IMO, it should be a best practice
> >>> not
> >>> to define methods which preclude entity bodies, if only for
> >>> reasons of
> >>> extensibility.  *shrug*
> >>>
> >>>> I was concerned that the spec does not say in the description of
> >>>> any
> >>>> request method that an entity-body is not allowed.  Based on what
> >>>> Roy
> >>>> says, the spec is correct: there is no request method for which an
> >>>> entity-body is not allowed.  That an entity-body for a HEAD or GET
> >>>> would
> >>>> be "useless" is not relevant.  A client is allowed send one and a
> >>>> server
> >>>> must parse it.
> >>>>
> >>>> What does "must parse it" imply?
> >>>
> >>> There's no requirement that the server *do* anything with the
> >>> entity body.
> >>>
> >>>> I raised this issue because of a specific problem between NuSOAP
> >>>> and
> >>>> lighttpd.  The former sends a GET with Content-Length: 0 when
> >>>> fetching
> >>>> WSDL.  The latter responds with "400 Bad Request" because of the
> >>>> message-body.  Would that server behavior be considered out of
> >>>> spec?
> >>>> The server presumably "parsed" the request.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, the server is buggy.
> >>>
> >>> FWIW, the message that kicked off the thread I referenced came to be
> >>> because of the same problem; some client (the Swiss HttpClient IIRC)
> >>> inserting "Content-Length: 0" and a server (Tomcat) choking on it.
> >>>
> >>> Mark.
> >>> --
> >>> Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://
> >>> www.markbaker.ca
> >>> Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
> > Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 03:28:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:36 GMT