- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:58:05 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think we can specify: 1) CONNECT requests MUST have a zero-length body (same language referring to p1 as we used for 205) 2) CONNECT responses that are successful (2xx) MUST have a zero-length body, because the tunnel begins after the header block. Thoughts? On 26/10/2010, at 7:33 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 25.10.2010 23:45, Adrien de Croy wrote: >> ... >> in relation to CONNECT, I think we can justify giving it special >> treatment for several reasons: >> >> 1. It's not part of the original spec, but an extension designed to >> enable arbitrary connectivity through a compliant proxy >> 2. It already has very specific requirements which make it very >> un-HTTP-like (e.g. the proxy connects and gets out of the way), no HTTP >> is (necessarily) used upstream. >> >> In fact in our code-base the special handling for CONNECT is much more >> involved than for say HEAD. I find it hard to conceive of a proxy that >> wouldn't treat CONNECT as a very special case already. >> >> In the one case where I've seen a body on a CONNECT method (blu-ray >> player), if that body were passed through to the end server, it broke >> things. >> >> If you allow bodies on a method, then Content-Length is required. I >> don't see any Content-Length headers on CONNECT messages, so current >> browsers would become incompatible. >> >> Can we allow Transfer-Encoding: chunked on CONNECT? IMO we can't. >> >> Adrien > > I think we are in agreement that CONNECT, once we add it to the spec, needs more work (see issues 250 and 251). > > Best regards, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 01:58:38 UTC