Re: duplicate parameters
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 11 June 2013 06:39 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 BD4AA21F8ECB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:39:52 -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 RL5MZ7pTg3er for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558F921F96EA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UmIDG-0006xy-Ad for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:37:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:37:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UmIDG-0006xy-Ad@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 1UmICx-0006vq-S6 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:37:31 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UmICu-0003Ju-39 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:37:30 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.27]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lm9rr-1UDEMh00hN-00ZcPm for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:37:02 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2013 06:37:01 -0000
Received: from p5DD945DD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.217.69.221] by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 11 Jun 2013 08:37:01 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18qjB8xkGAqnMfik9lQAyW2M7IwTv2iEAx1wDV0RY F35TO0Oa5TS6BI
Message-ID: <51B6C58A.9020702@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:36:58 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CAChr6SwFEytz2Uj9pOpuSw7CF1jCjgg7yyeweqK8cJy=CgFOTQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SwFEytz2Uj9pOpuSw7CF1jCjgg7yyeweqK8cJy=CgFOTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.434, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UmICu-0003Ju-39 22cde1610ca9c97ef9c37b9b083005ed
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: duplicate parameters
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51B6C58A.9020702@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18213
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 2013-06-10 23:55, R S wrote: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki/HeaderFieldTypes > > That discussion looks old, but this issue came up for me recently. Edits and actionable feedback welcome. > It seems some clients errantly send multiple "boundary" parameters in > multipart requests. Apache Commons and Rails can deal with this by Which? How often? Have bug reports been filed? > choosing the last boundary value, while Netty doesn't currently handle it. > > The WG might want to address this since it seems to be required for > interoperability. Any evidence it's "required"? Anyway, this isn't about "multipart/byteranges", right? Best regards, Julian
- duplicate parameters R S
- Re: duplicate parameters Julian Reschke