W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Content-Length and 304

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:47:55 +0200
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120922074755.GE13235@1wt.eu>
+1 too

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:11:25AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
> +1 -T
> 
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> >
> > > Roy, that?s a hairy diff, I was having trouble with it,
> >
> > It is easier if you skip the html part and just look at the
> > diff on the xml source.  Next time I will remember to include the
> > fragment ...
> >
> >  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1908#file1
> >
> > > but I think it?s saying that you MAY send a CL with a 304 containing the
> > correct size, which is what we want.  Given the record of bad practice in
> > this space, might it be worth while to say the server MUST NOT act stupid
> > and send a 0 or anything else inaccurate? -T
> >
> > Given the unbounded set of stupid things a server might do,
> > I'd rather not.  However, I can restrict it further.
> >
> > Instead of
> >
> >    A server &MAY; send a Content-Length header field in a
> >    <x:ref>304 (Not Modified)</x:ref> response to a conditional GET request
> >    (&status-304;) in order to indicate the size of the payload body,
> >    excluding any potential transfer-coding, that would have been sent in a
> >    <x:ref>200 (OK)</x:ref> response.
> >
> > how about
> >
> >    A server &MAY; send a Content-Length header field in a
> >    <x:ref>304 (Not Modified)</x:ref> response to a conditional GET request
> >    (&status-304;); a server &MUST-NOT; send Content-Length in such a
> > response
> >    unless its field-value equals the decimal number of octets that would
> >    have been sent in the payload body of a <x:ref>200 (OK)</x:ref> response
> >    to the same request.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 22 September 2012 07:48:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 22 September 2012 07:48:37 GMT