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

Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies)

From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:29:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4CC7AAAD.1000907@rowe-clan.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 10/26/2010 10:52 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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 ?

The closer we can get to the language in 10.1.2 101 Switching Protocols the more
likely this message will be clearly understood.
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 04:30:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC