- From: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:21:51 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:10:37AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Is it worth strengthening this language? Strengthening? Section 4.3. says that the existence of a message body is request method dependent. That is mathematically correct, but not logically: apart from the historic HEAD exception, the existens of a body is *not* method dependant. (Future methods can not change that.) It is generally a good idea to include "why" some things are the way they are. A note that HEAD is different for historic reasons makes pretty clear to the reader: don't draw any generic conclusions from HEAD. > > > On 29/11/2007, at 10:58 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > > > >On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Robert Siemer wrote: > >>I read the last sentence as "all other respones - defined in this > >>spec - do > >>include a message-body..." > > > >You read it wrong. The only possible way that a proxy can forward > >the response to a method it does not understand is if no method > >other than HEAD (for legacy reasons ONLY) is allowed to change the > >message delimiting rules. This applies to anything that uses or > >extends HTTP and will not be changed. > > > >As it happens, CONNECT can't be forwarded by proxies without having > >understood the method (because it uses a unique request format). > >That allows non-compliant behavior to be ignored, but it is still > >non-compliant. > > > >....Roy > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 01:21:08 UTC