- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:46:17 +1200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
or is this an example of an entity not being the same as a message body? Adrien de Croy wrote: > > from RFC2616 > > 10.2.6 205 Reset Content > > "... The response MUST NOT include an entity. " > > > 4.4 Message length > > "1.Any response message which "MUST NOT" include a message-body (such > as the 1xx, 204, and 304 responses and any response to a HEAD request) > is always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields, > regardless of the entity-header fields present in the message. " > > I read this as any 205 response being terminated by the blank line, > regardless of any Content-Length, and certainly disallowing chunking? > Sure, 205 isn't given as an example, however the requirement is about > any response message which MUST NOT include a message body, which 205 > satisfies according to 10.2.6. > > Regards > > Adrien > > > > > Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/88> >>>> RFC2616 Section 4.3 "Message Body" enumerates those messages that >>>> don't include a message-body; >>>> >>>> All 1xx (informational), 204 (no content), and 304 (not modified) >>>> responses MUST NOT include a message-body. All other responses do >>>> include a message-body, although it MAY be of zero length. >>>> >>>> However, it does not list 205 (section 10.2.6). >>>> >>>> Also if you look at the texts for 204, 304 and 205 responses, you >>>> see that 204 and 304 say "MUST NOT include a message-body", whereas >>>> 205 says "MUST NOT include an entity". 204 and 304 go on to say >>>> that the message is terminated at the first empty line, but 205 >>>> does not say that. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Proposal: >>> >>> - Add 205 to p1 sections 4.3 and 4.4 (which is where 2616's 4.3 >>> ended up), and >>> - Revise the language in p2 8.2.6 (the definition of 205 Reset >>> Content) to use the "MUST NOT include a message-body". >>> >>> The only argument I can see against this is that someone might >>> include entity headers in a 205 response, in the belief that that >>> response updates a cache. This could be fixed by adding the phrase >>> "or entity headers" to the MUST NOT requirement above. However, I >>> would note that 204 doesn't have any such language, and this >>> confusion hasn't come up before, so I don't think it's really >>> necessary. >>> >>> I think this is *almost* editorial -- any objection? >> >> Big objection. 205 was added late in the process of 2068 and >> could not be grandfathered into the message parsing algorithm >> as yet another (bad) exception. The requirement that 205 not >> include an entity means that the message-body MUST be of zero size >> (i.e., Content-Length must be supplied with a value of 0 >> or Transfer-Encoding chunked is used with a zero-length chunk). >> >> Hence, it is correct as specified, albeit confusing. It will >> be less confusing when the terminology is cleaned up. >> >> ....Roy >> > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 10:43:31 UTC