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

Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies)

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:52:32 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20101027035232.GF11819@1wt.eu>
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:58:05PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I think we can specify:
> 
> 1) CONNECT requests MUST have a zero-length body (same language referring to p1 as we used for 205)
> 2) CONNECT responses that are successful (2xx) MUST have a zero-length body, because the tunnel begins after the header block.
> 
> Thoughts?

I think this is fine. Concerning the last point, I think we could still
improve it a bit. By default, if there is no C-L, a user agent (or a
gateway) may consider that the body runs till the close (as it does
with other methods or statuses). As it is here, it makes one think that
it is mandatory to send a content-length: 0. Maybe we should word it
slightly differently, by first indicating that the tunnel begins after
the header block, then that the receiver of the response must ignore any
body in such a case. Maybe something around this :

 2) Successful CONNECT responses (2xx) indicate that the tunnel begins
    immediately after the header block, regardless of any Content-Length or
    Transfer-Encoding headers, which MUST be ignored by the recipient. These
    responses MUST have a zero-length body and MUST NOT be transfer-encoded.

Any thoughts ?
Willy
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 03:53:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:31 GMT