- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:52:12 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > ... >> So to reduce confusion, it would be good to drop the sentence above, >> and make that paragraph just say: >> >> "The presence of a message-body in a request is signaled by the >> inclusion of a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header field in the >> request's message-headers. When a request message contains both a >> message-body of non-zero length and a method that does not define any >> semantics for that request message-body, then an origin server SHOULD >> either ignore the message-body or respond with an appropriate error >> message (e.g., 413). A proxy or gateway, when presented the same >> request, SHOULD either forward the request inbound with the >> message-body or ignore the message-body when determining a response." > > I am not sure about the last sentence, but the rest is okay. The > real interoperability requirement is that the proxy/gateway must parse > the message correctly (handling the body even if it is not expected > by the method semantics) and not treat that body as a second request. > Whether it forwards the request or responds with an error is a decision > left to the local policies, I think. > > ....Roy > ... I have removed that sentence with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/600>. There's more work to do to fully resolve this issue though. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 09:53:08 UTC