W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

RE: Set-Cookie vs list header parsing (i129)

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:04:50 -0500
To: "'William A. Rowe, Jr.'" <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F717180D0020498AB53035FA90F22D03@T60>

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> You understand that both representations MUST cause a 400 
> reply, of course?
> The folding is irrelevant to the underlying flaw/contradiction.

That isn't what the spec says, AFAICT. Surely the proxy or the server MAY
report an error but they are not required to. More generally, there is
currently no requirement for the server to report syntax errors that do not
affect its processing of the message. For example, if the request included a
malformed Content-Location header, then the server wouldn't have to report
an error if it ignores Content-Location. Content-Length is a special case
because of its wide-ranging effects on parsing, but even for it there isn't
any such requirement. See issue 95 [1] and issue 93 [2].

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/95
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/93

- Brian
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 19:05:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:37 UTC