- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:45:55 +1100
- To: Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Jonathan / Dzontatas, Your contributions to this discussion are (yet again) disruptive. As such, this is a public warning, as per BCP94. If you continue to disrupt the work, your posting privileges will again be suspended. Regards, On 07/12/2012, at 10:41 AM, Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe media suffixes SHOULD be allowed on Content-Length: without type. > > Content-Length: 1234+ic > > Multiplication of values are symmetric to octets with such suffix. That would require no random order on Content-Type:. > > Solved? > > On Tuesday, December 4, 2012, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Adrien, > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 12:19:33AM +0000, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > > >>Is it really useful to distinguish between no body and body with no > > >>content? I can't imagine a use for such a distinction. > > >> > > > > > > > > >I think the example with the POST that is rejected without a content-length > > >is valid, I have already observed this one, though I don't remember on > > >what server. > > > > > maybe that's a bug in that server? > > not necessarily, don't forget that we're both reading this with our > intermediary author hat on, and we're mostly interested in getting > messaging right. But for application servers, some subtilities may > very well make a difference. Especially considering what was said in > 2616 about how to detect presence of a message body and the requirement > for POST requests to carry a message body. > > Willy > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 23:46:19 UTC