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

Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:22:20 +1100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <C4F0116C-9F9F-44E6-BF43-BD4AD024BBE1@mnot.net>
To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
Now that we've taken on CONNECT from RFC2817, this is:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/250

Cheers,


On 27/11/2007, at 6:21 AM, Dan Winship wrote:

> 
> As implemented in the real world, a successful response to a CONNECT request does not include a message-body. But this isn't stated in RFC 2817, and is actually forbidden by RFC 2616.
> 
> draft-luotonen-web-proxy-tunneling said:
> 
>    Example of a response:
> 
>          HTTP/1.0 200 Connection established
>          Proxy-agent: Netscape-Proxy/1.1
> 
>          ...data tunnelled from the server...
> 
>    After the empty line [that follows the message-headers], the proxy
>    will start passing data from the client connection to the remote
>    server connection
> 
> but RFC 2817 (5.3) removes the lack-of-message-body implication:
> 
>    Any successful (2xx) response to a CONNECT request indicates that
>    the proxy has established a connection to the requested host and
>    port, and has switched to tunneling the current connection to that
>    server connection.
> 
> And RFC 2616 (4.3) requires a 200 response to a CONNECT to have a message-body anyway:
> 
>    All responses to the HEAD request method MUST NOT include a
>    message-body, even though the presence of entity-header fields might
>    lead one to believe they do. All 1xx (informational), 204 (no
>    content), and 304 (not modified) responses MUST NOT include a
>    message-body. All other responses do include a message-body,
>    although it MAY be of zero length.
> 
> 
> So to fix things, RFC 2616 4.3 should be updated to include "A successful (2xx) response to a CONNECT request MUST NOT include a message-body." And if 2817 is in-scope for 2616bis then the fact should probably be reiterated there too.
> 
> -- Dan
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 04:22:51 GMT

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