- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:53:37 +0000
- To: Matt Menke <mmenke@google.com>
- cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <CAEK7mvomoxSqTs5APVj=ZzG2wDz24PhJtsSibGQq2oGkv-zcLg@mail.gmail.com> , Matt Menke writes: >> I'm uncomfortable with a rule which says "just ignore", so I would >> propose that failure to parse a the CS level should cause a 4xx >> error, just like an ascii BEL in a HTTP1 header would. >> >> But please note that this is only at the CS level, how valid CS >> which is semantically invalid (ie: "Content-Length: ABCD") should >> be handled is outside the scope of this ID. I'm not even sure >> we can give a meaningful "default" rule. > >I don't think we want a 4xx error - with HTTP status error codes, browsers >display the page contents of the error page, set cookies if needed, etc. I >think we'd want a hard failure here, more along what we do if we can't >establish a network connection. It's not clear to me what you consider a "hard failure" here ? In my world this would be 400 like semantics, which I would consider a "hard failure" ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 17 October 2016 20:54:02 UTC