- From: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:46:42 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > The standard requires an empty body on a non-closed connection to be > indicated by one of the two message length indications (CL or TE chunked). > In this case, the obvious solution is to require "Content-Length: 0" be > included in the header fields of the 200 response. It doesn't matter > if some clients ignore that field. What matters is that we don't add > more method-specific parsing of response bodies. I agree that it's stupid to have a special-case for CONNECT parsing, but that's *already* how implementations are required to behave. A client that tries to parse a CONNECT response according to the rules currently given in RFC 2616 will be unable to create a tunnel. Requiring proxies to add "Content-Length: 0" won't help, because clients will still want to be able to deal with pre-2616bis proxies, which will require the special case. -- Dan
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 00:46:52 UTC