If anything, I'd be inclined to make this even more explicit; e.g., "A 205 response body MUST be empty. Note that receivers will still parse the response according to the algorithm defined in [ref to p1]." On 26/10/2010, at 2:23 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 23:12:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:30 GMT