httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: 2.1.5 available for testing
Date Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:43 GMT
At 11:13 AM 6/20/2005, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>At 08:55 AM 6/20/2005, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>
>>>jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>
>>>>and GET with content-length.
>>>
>>>I think that is not forbidden in the rfc...
>>>But what about returning HTTP_BAD_REQUEST if Content-Length is not 0?
>>
>>See section 4.3 of RFC 2616.
>>Content-Length: 0 signals a message body of 0 bytes, not the
>>absence of a message body.  It shouldn't be treated differently
>>from Content-Length: n.
>
>OK, HTTP_BAD_REQUEST if C-L is present in GET?

I don't think so; 9.3 does not exclude it.  Any extended XML
resource description could require it.

The only method which prohibits message bodies is TRACE.  I believe
this is one case where we need to absolutely follow the letter of
RFC2616, and expect the backend to do the same.

I would not object to some additional flag in the <Proxy > block
which restricts message bodies in various ways, as an optional
feature as opposed to being 'stricter than the RFC'.

The changes to T-E and C-L will undoubtedly break some home brew
request submission code.  At least when things break, let's have
the RFC to fall back on, that we 'did the right thing' with respect
to request bodies.

Bill



Mime
View raw message