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

Re: P1: Content-Length SHOULD be sent

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:19:33 +0000
To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Zhong Yu" <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em30ceba95-9684-4c52-852f-6cc1c7b3bb85@bombed>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>
>Hi Martin,
>
>On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 03:08:01PM -0800, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
>>
>>On 4 December 2012 15:05, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>>>>    6.  If this is a request message and none of the above are true, then
>>>>        the message body length is zero (no message body is present).
>>>
>>> I think it should simply state
>>>
>>>     6.  If this is a request message and none of the above are true, then
>>>         the message contains no body.
>>
>>Is it really useful to distinguish between no body and body with no
>>content?  I can't imagine a use for such a distinction.
>>
>
>
>I think the example with the POST that is rejected without a content-length
>is valid, I have already observed this one, though I don't remember on
>what server.
>
maybe that's a bug in that server?

Adrien

>
>
>Willy
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 00:20:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 December 2012 00:20:23 GMT