- From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 08:01:09 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, tpauly@apple.com, squid3@treenet.co.nz, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023, Willy Tarreau wrote: > FWIW while I've always been tolerant for bare LFs in headers and trailers > (at least to support telnet/netcat), I've never accepted them in chunks nor > even when chunk extensions were needed, and never got a single report of > breakage due to not accepting them, thus I really think that all > implementations do correctly use CRLF and that it's not worth risking to > weaken the protocol by starting to support variations there. This matches my experience exactly (with curl). LF-tolerant in headers/trailers, strict when chunk-decoding. -- / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2023 06:01:17 UTC