Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-23, "6.3.6 205 Reset Content"

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 25 July 2013 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7231021F842B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MK5ylHeiPgs3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1926221F994B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2PlK-0000Xq-Qh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:55:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:55:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2PlK-0000Xq-Qh@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V2PlA-0000X7-Bg for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:55:28 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V2Pl8-0003qI-DX for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:55:28 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.90.160]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0McPvw-1UkkLM1Lay-00HewY for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:55:00 +0200
Message-ID: <51F1666D.3070801@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:54:53 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <51F0C5D7.5020100@gmx.de> <631B907D-D301-4E70-A9C7-6550F9A07F1F@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <631B907D-D301-4E70-A9C7-6550F9A07F1F@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:5ZYwjIyefZBKkU8024VDJoYXhjABgGLP3MWpbWdZ8tHJr1+byfC JtYU3efIx2jjJ22Z8Rd2u6N+Av43qbeaWjhFoiH7yK+IJDfun7CZGsnnw4suTR2i4Xvg6Fy GXbtxctC44rFSklobDoTpm6dvbw/cOppGOCrh3beRVMhlsNIf8ZVdYAOZNlMBeYAsaSlr5X hhSiCYxgJspncPvF4eeUw==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.339, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2Pl8-0003qI-DX 824a59758cbb94426f2f78b9ce56987f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-23, "6.3.6 205 Reset Content"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F1666D.3070801@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18927
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2013-07-25 19:39, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Yes, that was the intent. More specifically, generating chunked when there is no need to do so was considered far less interoperable than simply requiring C-L. We were able to make this a requirement because 205 was defined by the WG before any deployment.
>
> ....Roy
> ...

Well, RFC 2616 was kind of silent (if not wrong) about it.

I really wonder whether we need to rule out a silly edge case using a 
MUST. *If* we do, we really should be clear about the implication on 
Chunked Encoding...

Best regards, Julian