- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:09:39 -0800
- To: Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
> On Feb 2, 2018, at 1:43 AM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu> wrote: > On 02/01/2018 07:32 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:43:53PM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote: >>> The observation is correct. However, I'm not sure that this is the >>> solution I would choose. I'm not sure, but I think that an empty >>> header field would cause problems. >> Some intermediaries risk to drop it, considering that empty is equivalent >> to absent. > > I'm curious about this as I don't recall reading this in the RFCs. [...] FTR, an empty HTTP/1 field value is definitely not equivalent to absent. In some cases it is an error; in other cases it has a distinct meaning (like in Accept). An intermediary that absent-mindedly removed empty fields is just broken, but that doesn't apply to CGI (which is not HTTP) nor HTTP2-Settings (which should be listed in Connection to prevent it from being forwarded). Cheers, ....Roy
Received on Friday, 2 February 2018 17:10:10 UTC