- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:06:33 -0800
- To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Nov 27, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Dan Winship wrote: > 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. No, the current 2616 standard requires the CL:0, as did 2068. I don't care if some implementations don't bother to check -- I know what the requirement is for HTTP. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 01:06:45 UTC