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

Re: P1: Content-Length SHOULD be sent

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:25:10 -0600
Message-ID: <CACuKZqFPRtfyKqt8_6Ey1=Q0YV4Gm2kuFf1WxRQojfR7WOisZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 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.

At least, it is easier to distinguish the two, than to make them equivalent.

The former is already what RFC2616 does.

The latter requires new effort, introduces incompatible changes. And
what does it achieve? It'll allow client programmers to add a
frivolous Content-Length:0 to GET requests, and to omit
Content-Length:0 from POST requests. But why would any programmers
need that?

>
> 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.
>
> Willy
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 00:25:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 December 2012 00:25:40 GMT