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

Re: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129)

From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:14:58 -0500
Message-ID: <48B6EB22.7080302@rowe-clan.net>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Dan Winship' <dan.winship@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Yves Lafon wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Brian Smith wrote:
> 
>> field that is single-valued but erroneously repeated. If an intermediary
>> combines two single-valued header fields together then it could change 
>> the
>> meaning of the request/response if the combined value is also a legal 
>> value
>> for that field (see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/93).
> 
> If there an example of a repeated single-valued header that, once folded 
> in one list-valued header becomes legal?
>  Content-Length: 12
>  Content-Length: 42
> is as illegal as
>  Content-Length: 12,42
> 
> (and more than likely to trigger a 400 reply)

You understand that both representations MUST cause a 400 reply, of course?
The folding is irrelevant to the underlying flaw/contradiction.
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 18:16:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:54 GMT