Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next

In message <>
, 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