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

Re: Requests that do now allow bodies (do they exist?), was: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:52:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4A51C94C.4020204@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ...
>> So to reduce confusion, it would be good to drop the sentence above, 
>> and make that paragraph just say:
>> "The presence of a message-body in a request is signaled by the 
>> inclusion of a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header field in the 
>> request's message-headers. When a request message contains both a 
>> message-body of non-zero length and a method that does not define any 
>> semantics for that request message-body, then an origin server SHOULD 
>> either ignore the message-body or respond with an appropriate error 
>> message (e.g., 413). A proxy or gateway, when presented the same 
>> request, SHOULD either forward the request inbound with the 
>> message-body or ignore the message-body when determining a response."
> I am not sure about the last sentence, but the rest is okay.  The
> real interoperability requirement is that the proxy/gateway must parse
> the message correctly (handling the body even if it is not expected
> by the method semantics) and not treat that body as a second request.
> Whether it forwards the request or responds with an error is a decision
> left to the local policies, I think.
> ....Roy
> ...

I have removed that sentence with 

There's more work to do to fully resolve this issue though.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 09:53:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:50 UTC