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

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:17:09 +1100
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A506104A-827A-438E-9587-7CFBBA4CFB2F@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 15/10/2010, at 5:58 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> 
>>> "If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it SHOULD be treated as an error by discarding the message and closing the connection."
>>> 
>>> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1031>)
>> 
>> Is there a reason for this to be a SHOULD instead of a MUST? I know Adam already asked that, but I don't recall seeing an answer.
> 
> We can't simply break formerly-conforming implementations.

We can if it's a security issue.


> What's important is IMHO that the problem is explained, and that we advise implementations what do to. Which keyword we use is unlikely to have a big effect on what implementations will do in practice.


I tend to agree, SHOULD vs. MUST here isn't worth a tremendous amount of time. However, if we get agreement among UA implementers on MUST, that does seem the way to go.

Julian, have you put in any text about duplicate content-length values yet?

Regards,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 03:17:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:29 GMT