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 11:42:22 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20F1A39D-D423-4B5F-9AF6-2B0A4B3B7791@mnot.net>
To: Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com>
No, that was a direct message to you, written by me (the WG chair).


On 07/12/2012, at 11:36 AM, Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark, that looked like your auto-responder, if I didn't remove you from reply-list. It seemed out of order to this public resolution.
> 
> On Thursday, December 6, 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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/
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 00:42:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 December 2012 00:42:45 GMT