Re: Content-Length and 304

My experience has always been that the C-L on a 304 represents the length of the response had it been whole, and I see that as just a clarification of current practice. 

However, I agree that the SHOULD is too strong here, as it makes several existing implementations non-conformant. 


On 20/09/2012, at 2:46 AM, Julian Reschke <> wrote:

> On 2012-09-20 03:22, Zhong Yu wrote:
>> In the latest bis draft, a 304 response SHOULD set Content-Length
>> equal to the length of the would-be payload body.
>> ...
> That was the case since -19 (just clarifying).
> I also note that the requirements in P1 (Content-Length) and P4 (status code 304) do not seem to be totally in sync.
> Best regards, Julian

Mark Nottingham

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 17:27:55 UTC