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: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:28:15 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DB179B0B-3396-4C60-AE1C-C859F5840BA2@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
+1; if we're going to allow duplicates to be ignored, we should be explicit about it, not rely on a SHOULD.


On 18/10/2010, at 6:29 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:25:35AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 18.10.2010 05:17, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 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?
>>> ...
>> 
>> No. We wouldn't need it if we stick with SHOULD, right?
> 
> The fact that that sometimes happens might cause some browsers to loosen
> the check due to negative user feedback. Specifically focusing the control
> on different values will help developers satisfy users demand and security
> controls.
> 
> Regards,
> Willy
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 06:28:51 GMT

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