- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:24:03 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Mark, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 06:47:32PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Thus I'd suggest that the client > > always emits the content-length when it considers that semantically it > > emits a body even if it's empty. Let's imagine a disk backup tool uploading > > files over HTTP, using a few header fields to pass file name, permissions > > and various meta-data. Some files may be empty, and regardless of this they > > are sent. In this case it totally makes sense to emit "content-length: 0". > > > > I'd be tempted to simplify this as "if you're sending a body even an empty > > one, announce its size in content-length". Methods like POST and PUT expect > > a message body so that should always be done. > > That's a bit too simple. Keep in mind that for HTTP/1.1, > > "A sender MUST NOT send a Content-Length header field in any message that > contains a Transfer-Encoding header field." > <http://httpwg.org/specs/rfc7230.html#header.content-length> When I'm saying "c-l", I mean "or equivalent" or more precisely "announce the message length one way or another". I totally agree with you on all this, but I know that Kazuho is fine as well with language shortcuts like this :-) Cheers, Willy
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2016 09:24:31 UTC