W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:22:46 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <83FC5B43-A55B-46C9-8A08-D6602814BF88@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
We have a similar situation around request bodies --
> A message-body MUST NOT be included in a request if the  
> specification of the request method (Section 2 of [Part2])  
> explicitly disallows an entity-body in requests.

What I'd like to do in both cases is make it more apparent that the  
list of exceptions is closed, by not predicating it on an external  
MUST NOT.

In the case for requests, I think the entire sentence disappears,  
because we have not specified any method that disallow request bodies  
(unless one of the many WebDAV methods places this requirement on  
requests, and even then...).

For responses, it would make it something like:

"""
A message body MUST NOT be included in 1xx, 204 and 304 responses, as  
well as any response to a HEAD request. Such messages are always  
terminated by the first empty line after the header fields, regardless  
of the entity-header fields present in the message.
"""

So, -1 on the patch for now.


On 10/06/2009, at 1:35 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>> So how about fixing this part of the issue right way be replacing
>> "1. Any response message which "MUST NOT" include a message-body  
>> (such as the 1xx, 204, and 304 responses and any response to a HEAD  
>> request) is always terminated by the first empty line after the  
>> header fields, regardless of the entity-header fields present in  
>> the message."
>> with
>> "1. Any response message which "MUST NOT" include a message-body  
>> (i.e., the 1xx, 204, and 304 responses and any response to a HEAD  
>> request) is always terminated by the first empty line after the  
>> header fields, regardless of the entity-header fields present in  
>> the message."
>> ?
>
> It seems to me that we all agree this is an editorial error that  
> needs to be fixed. I've attached a patch to the issue, see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/88/88.diff 
> >.
>
> BR, Julian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 03:23:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT