WGLC p1: MUST fix Content-Length?

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Wed, 01 May 2013 05:55 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3182721F8E59 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.561
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2+QrGaCxsXNz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C0121F8E2C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UXPzW-0003Lk-PI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 05:54:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 05:54:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UXPzW-0003Lk-PI@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1UXPzM-0003L1-Hq for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 05:54:00 +0000
Received: from measurement-factory.com ([]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1UXPzL-0006fD-VW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 05:54:00 +0000
Received: from [] (localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by measurement-factory.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r415rbFS074668 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:53:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com)
Message-ID: <5180ADD8.8060307@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:53:28 -0600
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <D69329FD-7456-46C5-BE24-6E7EE7E48C39@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <D69329FD-7456-46C5-BE24-6E7EE7E48C39@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; envelope-from=rousskov@measurement-factory.com; helo=measurement-factory.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.509, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UXPzL-0006fD-VW 290ffec8cc8e6b434b09b5f1ac0ed606
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: WGLC p1: MUST fix Content-Length?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5180ADD8.8060307@measurement-factory.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17746
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>


    When talking about a Content-Length header field with multiple
identical values, Part 1 Section 3.3.2 of HTTPbis says:

> the recipient MUST either reject the message as invalid or
> replace the duplicated field-values with a single valid
> Content-Length field containing that decimal value prior to
> determining the message body length.

It is not clear whether "recipient MUST replace" (a requirement on the
recipient) also implies that "a sender MUST replace [...] when
forwarding the message" (a requirement on the sender). This issue has
been raised on 2011/11/28, but the discussion diverged, and I could not
tell whether there was a consensus on what the correct interpretation is.

Please decide whether a proxy MUST "fix" such Content-Length headers
when forwarding the message and adjust the above text to clarify one way
or another.

Thank you,