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

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:00:43 -0600
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 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: <20101017230043.e639bac7.eric@bisonsystems.net>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> > We can't simply break formerly-conforming implementations.
> 
> We can if it's a security issue.
> 

The security issue in question is "HTTP request smuggling" which is an
attack vector which always takes the form of a malicious request from a
user-agent.  All it is the other way around, is a broken server putting
itself at risk.  There's no justification for a MUST even if there is
consensus for it.

I thought the consensus the WG was after, was whether or not to discard
all but the first C-L or the last C-L.  The current proposed language
says read to connection close, instead.  This makes loads of sense to
me, instead of MUST fail hard based on what concern, exactly?

-Eric
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 05:01:22 GMT

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