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

#251 (connect bodies), was: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:33:55 +0200
Message-ID: <4CC69273.9070807@gmx.de>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25.10.2010 23:45, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> ...
> in relation to CONNECT, I think we can justify giving it special
> treatment for several reasons:
>
> 1. It's not part of the original spec, but an extension designed to
> enable arbitrary connectivity through a compliant proxy
> 2. It already has very specific requirements which make it very
> un-HTTP-like (e.g. the proxy connects and gets out of the way), no HTTP
> is (necessarily) used upstream.
>
> In fact in our code-base the special handling for CONNECT is much more
> involved than for say HEAD. I find it hard to conceive of a proxy that
> wouldn't treat CONNECT as a very special case already.
>
> In the one case where I've seen a body on a CONNECT method (blu-ray
> player), if that body were passed through to the end server, it broke
> things.
>
> If you allow bodies on a method, then Content-Length is required. I
> don't see any Content-Length headers on CONNECT messages, so current
> browsers would become incompatible.
>
> Can we allow Transfer-Encoding: chunked on CONNECT? IMO we can't.
>
> Adrien

I think we are in agreement that CONNECT, once we add it to the spec, 
needs more work (see issues 250 and 251).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 08:34:45 GMT

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