Re: GET / DELETE request bodies

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Wed, 19 February 2020 03:33 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 7BB571200C5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:33:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 6f8CGaWvuTiG for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 634BC120033 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1j4G3f-0003bh-6m for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:29:55 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:29:55 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1j4G3f-0003bh-6m@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1j4G3a-0003au-Pd for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:29:50 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1j4G3Y-0005ba-TT for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:29:50 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 01J3TQkq032333; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:29:26 +0100
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:29:26 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Roberto Polli <roberto@teamdigitale.governo.it>
Cc: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20200219032926.GB32312@1wt.eu>
References: <CAChr6SyZN4ceSeHkfQVnKRX7=RPnKjX_vAsL1mTHs18-MKRphQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_hAJEdM+NeVKAwEC+8uQf_0Dv-ArEtetuSoOW3wcV9WMeMZw@mail.gmail.com> <22665322-3F2B-4B2A-AE8F-91A53DE75B9E@gbiv.com> <CAChr6SxrRBZcSttRgtb09wYZ8H=CoOy4VZUOtUhkgjdxF31CpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRHeuy5UYSOzTQTO4kJgF6acuQj9NzyrmCai=gp0hSLPdsOtw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMRHeuy5UYSOzTQTO4kJgF6acuQj9NzyrmCai=gp0hSLPdsOtw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1j4G3Y-0005ba-TT 327d707093a87bfc8b785ae285314f47
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: GET / DELETE request bodies
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20200219032926.GB32312@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37370
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:33:58PM +0100, Roberto Polli wrote:
> >> They have no semantics in the sense that a body cannot change the meaning
> >> of a received request. They are absolutely forbidden to have any impact
> >> whatsoever on the processing or interpretation of the request aside from
> >> the necessity to read and discard the bytes received in order to maintain
> >> the message framing. The only reason we didn't forbid sending a body is
> >> because that would lead to lazy implementations assuming no body would
> >> be sent.
> >>
> >
> > This text on message framing seems clearer to me than what's in the draft,
> > but vague references to "semantics" in web specs drive me nuts. Maybe no
> > one else cares. :)
> >
> 
> I think that the above text should be in the specifications. That will make
> the web a better place.

Well, it is more or less implied when you check 7230 and 7231 together,
but I agree that having such a single prominent sentence somewhere would
make it clear to the casual reader that framing requires to support this
even though you should not expect to rely on that data.

Willy