- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:55:41 +1300
- To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Robert Siemer wrote: > Hello! > > Some time ago we had the discussion about the CONNECT responses and that > they should carry a Content-Length header if the result code is 200. > rules for whether there should be a Content-Length field are based around whether there is an entity body or not. No entity body, no header. With CONNECT, the purpose is to establish a TCP connection. There's no guarantee what protocol will be used over the connection. I don't see how having an entity body on request or response can help the goal of setting up a connection. It is obviously subsequent data. In no other place in HTTP do we consider sending entity data for a subsequent request on an initial message, and I would be opposed to adding that capability now. > We had the example of "Content-Length: 0" but what about letting the > tunneled data be part of the request/response? > > That raises the question: May a successful response overtake the > request? The spec has only a POST-rejecting example which does that. And > what about if the response measures up to the request? For example an > "echo POST", which can answer as far as the request is. - If the request > terminates, the response will, too. > > I see no restrictions in HTTP for that behaviour, does anybody else? > > CONNECT could be such a "catch up" method. > > > Regards, > Robert > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 18:53:19 UTC