W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:21:41 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB48B15.1030202@gmx.de>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
CC: "William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12.10.2010 18:13, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> I would say:
>>>
>>> "...If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it MUST
>>> be treated as error."
>>>
>>> (or at the SHOULD-level if you're scared of MUST-level requirements).
>>
>> Well, "MUST be treated as error" isn't really helpful; it doesn't require
>> any observable behavior.
>>
>> That a response message like this *is* broken is a statement of fact; the
>> question is whether we want to require any specific handling. So, for
>> instance, do we want to forbid any of the behaviors we see today? (use the
>> first value/use the second value/use until end of connection)?
>
> I see.  I meant that the user agent MUST close the socket and ignore
> the response, or whatever the HTTP spec idiom is for instructing the
> user agent to treat this response as a fatal error.

Yes. As a matter of fact, my proposal wasn't better in that aspect :-)

So...

"If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it SHOULD be 
treated as in error by ignoring the message and closing the connection."

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 16:22:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:28 GMT