- From: Paul Hethmon <phethmon@utk.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 07:13:44 EST
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Addressed to: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
** Reply to note from Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com> 06/24/96 9:44pm MDT
>
> Or we could simply state (near the front) that as a general
> principle, the action of a recipient that receives an internally
> contradictory message is "undefined", and the implementor has
> no obligation to do anything in particular (but should not
> crash.) As you've observed, this would probably be the result
> of a bogus client implementation.
>
> I'd prefer the latter, since it doesn't require us to consider
> all of the nonsensical permutations ahead of time.
>
Sounds reasonable to me. It's probably near impossible to find
all of the contradictory situations. I do think returning an error
message seems the best.
Leaving it undefined might be a little to open as one recipient may
choose to toss one of the contradictory headers and end up doing
something the sender doesn't intend.
I would choose to reply with an error message myself and let
the sender stew it over.
Paul
Paul Hethmon
phethmon@utk.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
Computerman -- Agricultural Policy Analysis Center
----------------------------------------------------------
NeoLogic Ftp & Mail Servers
----------------------------------------------------------
Knoxville Warp User's: http://apacweb.ag.utk.edu/os2
----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 1996 04:19:41 UTC