httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <>
Subject Re: 2.1.5 available for testing
Date Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:21:51 GMT
Joe Orton wrote:

>On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:02:50PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
>>Prior to either patch we totally mishandled such requests.  So the
>>only question which remains is; which behavior do we prefer?
>>As the RFC states this is not acceptable, my gut says reject ANY
>>request with both C-L and T-E of non-identity.
>I don't see any reason to reject anything, 2616 dictates precisely how 
>to handle requests which are malformed in this way.  I do think the 
>check against "identity" is actually redundant, though; not least 
>because the 2616 errata remove all references to the word.
>I think correct behaviour is to just follow the letter of Section 4.4, 
>point 3, as below:
>				If a message is received with both a
>     Transfer-Encoding header field and a Content-Length header field,
>     the latter MUST be ignored.
>(and it's also going to be better to check for T-E before C-L since 
>99.99% of requests received are not going to have a T-E header so it'll 
>fall through slightly quicker)
+1 to the posted patch.


View raw message