Re: Distinguishing 0-byte request body in HTTP/2

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 15 September 2016 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 AFCD212B4A6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 01:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4AAJJjJMcuyW for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 01:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 592A512B4B0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 01:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bkSL9-0000h6-D2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:48:15 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:48:15 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bkSL9-0000h6-D2@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bkSKw-0000fY-LS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:48:02 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bkSKu-0007Xh-8v for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:48:02 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 808AD22E25B; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 04:47:35 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160915070000.GA4273@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 18:47:32 +1000
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0AE89931-E198-4AF0-8CBA-33151D80B609@mnot.net>
References: <CANatvzzZsd1HfCWowjXc5UwmgDgUqjRs3vyyU1qtyvKkPub7Fw@mail.gmail.com> <EEF6459F-D45A-40B2-AEF9-8E2F1C4E1C24@mnot.net> <CANatvzxyBbk2DfGd+0B_+pMpgWN6C_6O3FYUy_HcC5P5EtrOvg@mail.gmail.com> <20160915070000.GA4273@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.351, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bkSKu-0007Xh-8v 7ed3fb445936ec039a5169929fb51803
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Distinguishing 0-byte request body in HTTP/2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0AE89931-E198-4AF0-8CBA-33151D80B609@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32399
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 15 Sep 2016, at 5:00 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kazuho,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 09:09:42AM +0900, Kazuho Oku wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thank you very much for the clarification.
>> 
>> So to paraphrase, the general rule for handling request body is
>> defined in section 3.3.3 of RFC 7230 as:
>> 
>>   6.  If this is a request message and none of the above are true, then
>>       the message body length is zero (no message body is present).
>> 
>> which means that in HTTP, there is no distinction between a request
>> with zero-length body and a request _without_ a body.
>> 
>> That means it is completely up to the HTTP client to whether or not to
>> send `content-length: 0` for such requests, though each implementation
>> may decide to send or not, depending on interoperability issues that
>> might exist.
> 
> In fact there exists a corner case, some servers return 411 in response
> to a POST without a content-length.

That's a bit different; the message is still delimited in the same way, but the server is saying that it wants to know the length up-front (for purposes other than figuring out where it ends; usually, to figure out if it's willing to accept it).

> Thus I'd suggest that the client
> always emits the content-length when it considers that semantically it
> emits a body even if it's empty. Let's imagine a disk backup tool uploading
> files over HTTP, using a few header fields to pass file name, permissions
> and various meta-data. Some files may be empty, and regardless of this they
> are sent. In this case it totally makes sense to emit "content-length: 0".
> 
> I'd be tempted to simplify this as "if you're sending a body even an empty
> one, announce its size in content-length". Methods like POST and PUT expect
> a message body so that should always be done.

That's a bit too simple. Keep in mind that for HTTP/1.1,

"A sender MUST NOT send a Content-Length header field in any message that contains a Transfer-Encoding header field." <http://httpwg.org/specs/rfc7230.html#header.content-length>

Also, don't put C-L: 0 on 304 et al! :)

Cheers,

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