- From: Adam M. Donahue <adam@cyber-guru.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:19:56 -0400
- To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: Louis Discepola <disc7701@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>, Catalin Floristean <floriste@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
> From: Louis Discepola <disc7701@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> > The protocol states that "a TRACE request MUST NOT include > an entity". For someone writing a server program, this > requirement implies that the server program must check that > this condition is upheld. But after reading a line of data > from a client, there is no way for the server program to > distinguish whether it received the first line of an entity > body or the fist line of a badly formatted request line. It > cannot therefore reply with an accurate response code. I > suggest that the HTTP/1.1 specification clearly force the client > side to enforce this requirement. It can distinguish this with a CRLF pair. Because a TRACE request cannot contain an entity as per the specification, then anything after the CRLF pair (not including additional CRLFs) would have to be considered the beginning of a new request. However, another question to ask would be how a server should handle a TRACE request when a Content-Length header, for example, is included. Should the server simply read in the entity in any event even though it's forbidden by the spec (I'd think so, in keeping with being lenient), and then just not return it with the response? Or should the server respond with the entire trace? Or should the trace, in this case, be answered with a 400 status code? > From: Catalin Floristean <floriste@slinky.cs.nyu.edu> > Also, it would help if it were stated clearly that the > request headers apply to the trace response (e.g. a TRACE > request with a "TE: chunked" will have it response's > message body -- the trace -- chunked) and that a "*" URI is > allowed here (although this could be implied from other > sections). I think we all missed the point of TE. "TE: chunked" is never required since chunked encoding is *always* acceptable, correct, working group? Adam mailto:adam@cyber-guru.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 1998 14:24:34 UTC