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 10:47:32 +1100
Cc: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5D772469-3CCC-4D54-8790-31FC761B7A13@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Trying to wrap this discussion up --

Roy has made a proposed edit here:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2034#file1
 
Please have a look and speak up if you can't live with that approach.

Regards,


On 05/12/2012, at 5:48 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> 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 23:47:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 December 2012 23:48:01 GMT