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

Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:23:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4CC5A0D5.1000008@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11.06.2009 11:58, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> We have a similar situation around request bodies --
>>>> A message-body MUST NOT be included in a request if the
>>>> specification of the request method (Section 2 of [Part2])
>>>> explicitly disallows an entity-body in requests.
>>> What I'd like to do in both cases is make it more apparent that the
>>> list of exceptions is closed, by not predicating it on an external
>>> MUST NOT.
>>
>> That's a good point.
>>
>>> In the case for requests, I think the entire sentence disappears,
>>> because we have not specified any method that disallow request bodies
>>> (unless one of the many WebDAV methods places this requirement on
>>> requests, and even then...).
>>
>> Nope, WebDAV doesn't do that.
>>
>> From RFC2616 I see two potential candidates: (1) TRACE (which uses the
>> same terminology as the 205 status that started this thread: "MUST NOT
>> include an entity"), and (2) CONNECT (?).
>
> There are no candidates. Any change to the message parsing algorithm
> would require a major bump in HTTP version.
 > ...

In the meantime, the parsing section in Part 1 has been revised.

I believe we still need to rephrase the description of 205, currently 
saying:

"The response MUST NOT include a message-body."

Proposal:

"The message-body included with the response MUST be empty."

(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/88/i88.diff>)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 15:23:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:30 GMT