- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:22:54 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 07:11:57PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 20/04/2013, at 7:06 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 06:41:01PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> p2 4.3.2 says: > >> > >> Aside from the payload header fields (Section 3.3), the server SHOULD > >> send the same header fields in response to a HEAD request as it would > >> have sent if the request had been a GET. > >> > >> The payload header fields include Content-Length, which in my testing is > >> pretty common in HEAD responses. Was this an oversight, or intentional? > > > > In my opinion it was intentional, as it's the only way for a client > > to know the payload size in advance without retrieving the file. > > I was asking if it was intentional that, as currently specified, we say that > C-L should be *omitted* from HEAD responses. This is not what I'm seeing in p1/3.3.2 : A server MAY send a Content-Length header field in a response to a HEAD request (Section 4.3.2 of [Part2]); a server MUST NOT send Content-Length in such a response unless its field-value equals the decimal number of octets that would have been sent in the payload body of a response if the same request had used the GET method. Maybe I'm missing something or there are inconsistencies with other parts ? Willy
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 09:23:39 UTC