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

Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:55:41 +1300
Message-ID: <479F76AD.7060108@qbik.com>
To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org



Robert Siemer wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Some time ago we had the discussion about the CONNECT responses and that 
> they should carry a Content-Length header if the result code is 200.
>   
rules for whether there should be a Content-Length field are based 
around whether there is an entity body or not.  No entity body, no header. 

With CONNECT, the purpose is to establish a TCP connection.  There's no 
guarantee what protocol will be used over the connection. 

I don't see how having an entity body on request or response can help 
the goal of setting up a connection.  It is obviously subsequent data.  
In no other place in HTTP do we consider sending entity data for a 
subsequent request on an initial message, and I would be opposed to 
adding that capability now.


> We had the example of "Content-Length: 0" but what about letting the
> tunneled data be part of the request/response?
>
> That raises the question: May a successful response overtake the 
> request? The spec has only a POST-rejecting example which does that. And 
> what about if the response measures up to the request? For example an 
> "echo POST", which can answer as far as the request is. - If the request 
> terminates, the response will, too.
>
> I see no restrictions in HTTP for that behaviour, does anybody else?
>
> CONNECT could be such a "catch up" method.
>
>
> Regards,
> 		Robert
>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 18:53:19 GMT

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