Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies)

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.


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

Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 01:58:38 UTC