W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [HTTP/1.1] method length and 501 Not Implemented

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:45:53 +0100
To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Cc: IETF HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <mafvj8hk3g4r0i9go75pee85g0f59g2ap6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Karl Dubost wrote:
>Le 12 mars 2013 à 19:19, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit :
>> The text above discusses length limits and reactions to them; it is not
>> meant to say anything about other reasons for sending 501. If the server
>> does not recognise the "YO" method then it should also reply with 501,
>> as per the definition of the 501 status code.
>
>Yes exactly, but then why being specific on the length of the *method*? 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22#section-6.6.2

It discusses the request line which consists of method, address, and
version information, and if you want to add a reminder that addresses
can be very long, as the text does, then you end up with discussing
the method separately aswell (and it's conceivable that a server might
pick some other code for this case without the recommendation, just as
it might implement worse behavior, like having a fixed buffer for the
method that overruns when using a overly long method). I don't think
it's phrased very well, but I also don't think it's very strange.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 23:46:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 12 March 2013 23:46:26 GMT