Re: Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 allow bogus Content-Length?

[Matthew Kerwin <[e-mail]>]

On 15 February 2017 at 10:42, Adrien de Croy <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Alex Rousskov" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Adrien de Croy" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> Sent: 15/02/2017 1:32:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 allow bogus Content-Length?
>
> On 02/14/2017 04:18 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>>
>>  The only true size of a body is what you obtain by counting its bytes.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. The only true size of a body is the Content-Length value (in
>> relevant contexts).
>>
>
> What about for a sender piecing a message together.  Where does
> Content-Length come from?
>
> The content existed before you derived or obtained its length.
>
>
When we say "content" do we mean content of the message, content of the
representation, or content of the resource? I've always taken
content-length to mean the content of the representation[*] -- which, since
the demise of T-E, basically means message payload.

When we say "body", I hope we're all always talking about message payload.
(i.e.: representation · Range · T-E)

Reasoning about the _*resource*_ (including file size) is the purview of
the application, outside of HTTP transport or semantics. At least, that's
how it looks from my ivory tower.

[*] something something Range something

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/