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

Re: P1: Content-Length SHOULD be sent

From: Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:43:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAPAK-6pcBxvoS89675HkGv4b4=c58N7-6OjCmAMpHjZPPCVNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To me, the bug appears in use of the word octets, as it implies HTTPS
without any Transfer-Encoding: header.

I think it is easier known if length is determinate or indeterminate on the
wire; otherwise, the numeric value is an assertion in HTTP.

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:

>
> ------ 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 00:44:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 December 2012 00:44:04 GMT