httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de>
Subject Re: Content-Length header for HTTP 204 and 1xx status codes
Date Wed, 07 Dec 2016 16:51:15 GMT
From a pure protocol point of view, all responses can have headers, I think. But there might
be several implementations that do not cope well with them. But if we get some from an upstream
server, I think we should forward them. 

> Am 07.12.2016 um 17:31 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:05 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2016 11:46 AM, "Luca Toscano" <toscano.luca@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> while working on https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51350 a user asked why
httpd send the "Content-Length: 0" header for HTTP 204 responses given the following statement
in the RFC:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#page-30
> "A server MUST NOT send a Content-Length header field in any response with a status code
of 1xx (Informational) or 204 (No Content)."
> 
> I was looking at the spec for 101 and 100 responses and think we are going way overboard
on replying with a 100 response. Looking at the 101 example, we should send a reply of 0 or
a few very explicit header fields and save the balance of output headers for the final response
code. Otherwise these all seem to be wasted network bytes.
> 
> 
> The 101 Upgrading response has a very short list of necessary
> headers, only Connection: and Upgrade: fields are informative; 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-6.7
> 
> I did not find anything in these sections on useful 100 Continue
> response headers, and believe there are none;
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.2.1
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-5.1.1
> 
> Does anyone have pointers to legitimizing any 100 response
> headers?
> 


Mime
View raw message