- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:13:04 +0200
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I'm reluctant to open the door for wordsmithing the specs for readability in errata; everyone tends to have an opinion, and few actually read the errata, which leads me to believe it's not a good use of WG time. That said, if you want to make a concrete suggestion, go ahead (before and after). Cheers, > On 10 Jul 2015, at 11:15 am, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > > CC'ing Mark to make sure this is on his radar. > > > This same text seems to keep coming up as errata (this is the third time > IIRC) and as below it can even catch some of us WG regulars who know > what its about. > > To me it seem that the core issue is the words 'request' and 'response' > being semi-hidden in the long descriptive text. > > I wonder if it is worth putting in an eratta to have the paragraph split > into two simpler paragraphs starting with words like "For requests ..." > and "For responses ..." ? > > This is after all two different sets of handling criteria for different > message types. It makes a fair bit of sense to have them in different > clauses as the rest of the documents text generally does for similar things. > > Amos > > On 10/07/2015 9:29 a.m., Willy Tarreau wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:11:10PM -0500, Zhong Yu wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:33:46PM -0500, Zhong Yu wrote: >>>>> The spec does allow a response like >>>>> >>>>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain >>>>> Transfer-Encoding: gzip >>>>> Connection: close >>>> >>>> No it does not allow it as chunked is not last. It's in 3.3.1 : >>>> >>>> If any transfer coding >>>> other than chunked is applied to a request payload body, the sender >>>> MUST apply chunked as the final transfer coding to ensure that the >>>> message is properly framed. >>>> >>> >>> This text talk about "REQUEST" only :) The next sentence talks about >>> "RESPONSE" - >> >> Hmm yes, good catch, sorry! >> >>>> If any transfer coding other than chunked is applied to a response >>> payload body, the sender MUST either apply chunked as the final transfer >>> coding or terminate the message by closing the connection. >>> >>> >>> Apparently, the text is prune to misreading. >> >> Indeed, I didn't pay attention, I tend to consider that the rule >> applies to both directions, though the strict control in haproxy >> clearly is only for the request, just as specified. >> >> So yes, the spec allows it and also specifies how to process it. >> I doubt any server find it fun to play this game given that we >> all know that connection-delimited bodies are prone to silent >> truncation, but that doesn't mean no server does it. >> >> Regards, >> Willy >> >> > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2015 12:14:14 UTC