- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:54:53 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-07-25 19:39, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Yes, that was the intent. More specifically, generating chunked when there is no need to do so was considered far less interoperable than simply requiring C-L. We were able to make this a requirement because 205 was defined by the WG before any deployment. > > ....Roy > ... Well, RFC 2616 was kind of silent (if not wrong) about it. I really wonder whether we need to rule out a silly edge case using a MUST. *If* we do, we really should be clear about the implication on Chunked Encoding... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 17:55:28 UTC