Re: p2: Content-Length in HEAD responses

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 20 April 2013 23:38 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 22F0321F888F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, 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 Q9ADkurIaiG6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC2D21F880F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UThKp-0001ZV-Np for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:36:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:36:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UThKp-0001ZV-Np@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UThKk-0001Yl-Sm for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:36:42 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UThKj-0006jO-24 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:36:42 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E4AA509B6; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:36:18 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqFUMn+yrnm4Y2tgD6vP=xEbG6rd=fh_7_KLJXdHFjnsGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:36:15 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0824F2BF-BD02-4C92-A4CC-022ACB196F45@mnot.net>
References: <6EAF151D-EBE7-456D-B5D1-A35933CCDCF8@mnot.net> <CACuKZqFUMn+yrnm4Y2tgD6vP=xEbG6rd=fh_7_KLJXdHFjnsGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.293, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UThKj-0006jO-24 2032940e1debefe142f773e284526063
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Content-Length in HEAD responses
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0824F2BF-BD02-4C92-A4CC-022ACB196F45@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17438
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 21/04/2013, at 3:20 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does it actually intend to say
> 
>    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,
> except that the payload header fields can be omitted.

+1  I like that, except that perhaps s/can/MAY/

> However I don't understand the "except" clause - why not require *all*
> header fields to be sent as if they would be for a GET request.

IIRC we allowed that because many implementations don't now, and we don't need to make them non-conformant for interop (since C-L isn't defining the message length in this case).

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/