IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 16 September 2016 06:05 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 6233D12B13D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 23:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 lwhtsF-I_iIV for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 23:05:15 -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 CFD7C12B103 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 23:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bkmCi-0005mD-0w for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 06:00:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 06:00:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bkmCi-0005mD-0w@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 <w@1wt.eu>) id 1bkmCX-0005he-BG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 06:00:41 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1bkmCN-0007mR-FP for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 06:00:38 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u8G603Wx017792; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:00:03 +0200
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:00:03 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160916060003.GA17789@1wt.eu>
References: <CANatvzzZsd1HfCWowjXc5UwmgDgUqjRs3vyyU1qtyvKkPub7Fw@mail.gmail.com> <EEF6459F-D45A-40B2-AEF9-8E2F1C4E1C24@mnot.net> <CANatvzxyBbk2DfGd+0B_+pMpgWN6C_6O3FYUy_HcC5P5EtrOvg@mail.gmail.com> <20160915070000.GA4273@1wt.eu> <0D85D464-2BF1-4959-A73F-7E43DD2CC8DD@gbiv.com> <20160915220637.GA17443@1wt.eu> <788B5DD1-D4B2-4B7C-8438-7F8BDAE0CFE7@gbiv.com> <AE0FEE86-9E62-41DB-86BF-2479E5B68A1B@gbiv.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AE0FEE86-9E62-41DB-86BF-2479E5B68A1B@gbiv.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.575, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bkmCN-0007mR-FP bbc278a0cbb03324b409615039a7a0a0
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/20160916060003.GA17789@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32409
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 Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 03:21:57PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > CL is present only for message framing and can be removed at any hop.
> > CL:0 versus no CL has no semantic distinction whatsoever, so any recipient
> > that chooses to interpret it as a distinction is inherently broken.
> 
> And the purpose of 411 is to say that Transfer-Encoding chunked isn't useful
> because the resource requires a fixed length before it can be invoked (CGI).

OK, thanks for this clarification Roy!

Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email