Re: p2: Content-Length in HEAD responses

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sat, 20 April 2013 09:24 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 5211621F84E3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.124
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.475, 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 z0mngc78+tZh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15BD321F91A5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTU1G-00052x-NC for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:23:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:23:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTU1G-00052x-NC@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UTU1D-00052E-Ti for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:23:39 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UTU0q-0005Sl-8E for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:23:36 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r3K9Ms6m029129; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:22:54 +0200
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:22:54 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130420092254.GT26517@1wt.eu>
References: <6EAF151D-EBE7-456D-B5D1-A35933CCDCF8@mnot.net> <20130420090647.GQ26517@1wt.eu> <4C6961E9-2EFC-418F-81BF-C7F0E31A1056@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C6961E9-2EFC-418F-81BF-C7F0E31A1056@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.585, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.702, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UTU0q-0005Sl-8E eb99aa4e12e0ea88a512bd4fe1a239d5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Content-Length in HEAD responses
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130420092254.GT26517@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17421
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 Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 07:11:57PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> On 20/04/2013, at 7:06 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 06:41:01PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> p2 4.3.2 says:
> >> 
> >>    Aside from the payload header fields (Section 3.3), the server SHOULD
> >>    send the same header fields in response to a HEAD request as it would
> >>    have sent if the request had been a GET.
> >> 
> >> The payload header fields include Content-Length, which in my testing is
> >> pretty common in HEAD responses. Was this an oversight, or intentional?
> > 
> > In my opinion it was intentional, as it's the only way for a client
> > to know the payload size in advance without retrieving the file.
> 
> I was asking if it was intentional that, as currently specified, we say that
> C-L should be *omitted* from HEAD responses.

This is not what I'm seeing in p1/3.3.2 :

   A server MAY send a Content-Length header field in a response to a
   HEAD request (Section 4.3.2 of [Part2]); a server MUST NOT send
   Content-Length in such a response unless its field-value equals the
   decimal number of octets that would have been sent in the payload
   body of a response if the same request had used the GET method.

Maybe I'm missing something or there are inconsistencies with other parts ?

Willy