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

Re: P1: Content-Length SHOULD be sent

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:45:55 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2391FA9E-D377-4E5D-BEB1-A07A96A425BF@mnot.net>
To: Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com>
Jonathan / Dzontatas,

Your contributions to this discussion are (yet again) disruptive.

As such, this is a public warning, as per BCP94. If you continue to disrupt the work, your posting privileges will again be suspended.

Regards,


On 07/12/2012, at 10:41 AM, Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe media suffixes SHOULD be allowed on Content-Length: without type.
> 
> Content-Length: 1234+ic
> 
> Multiplication of values are symmetric to octets with such suffix. That would require no random order on Content-Type:.
> 
> Solved?
> 
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Adrien,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 12:19:33AM +0000, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
> > >>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?
> 
> not necessarily, don't forget that we're both reading this with our
> intermediary author hat on, and we're mostly interested in getting
> messaging right. But for application servers, some subtilities may
> very well make a difference. Especially considering what was said in
> 2616 about how to detect presence of a message body and the requirement
> for POST requests to carry a message body.
> 
> Willy
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 23:46:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 December 2012 23:46:22 GMT