- From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:14:58 -0500
- 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 UTC