Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 18 October 2010 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933283A694F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.401, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cn1xdZYkYDvV for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67633A6C8A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1P7hFR-0002O0-VU for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:22:58 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1P7hFL-0002Ml-RK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:22:51 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1P7hFK-0003wI-5Q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:22:51 +0000
Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.180.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B1E322E1EB; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:22:23 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <474B1CD6.80101@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:22:20 +1100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C4F0116C-9F9F-44E6-BF43-BD4AD024BBE1@mnot.net>
References: <474B1CD6.80101@gmail.com>
To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Received-SPF: pass
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1P7hFK-0003wI-5Q 403903705ce294eabb85b1ac79127d58
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/C4F0116C-9F9F-44E6-BF43-BD4AD024BBE1@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/9453
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@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-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1P7hFR-0002O0-VU@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:22:57 +0000

Now that we've taken on CONNECT from RFC2817, this is:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/250

Cheers,


On 27/11/2007, at 6:21 AM, Dan Winship wrote:

> 
> As implemented in the real world, a successful response to a CONNECT request does not include a message-body. But this isn't stated in RFC 2817, and is actually forbidden by RFC 2616.
> 
> draft-luotonen-web-proxy-tunneling said:
> 
>    Example of a response:
> 
>          HTTP/1.0 200 Connection established
>          Proxy-agent: Netscape-Proxy/1.1
> 
>          ...data tunnelled from the server...
> 
>    After the empty line [that follows the message-headers], the proxy
>    will start passing data from the client connection to the remote
>    server connection
> 
> but RFC 2817 (5.3) removes the lack-of-message-body implication:
> 
>    Any successful (2xx) response to a CONNECT request indicates that
>    the proxy has established a connection to the requested host and
>    port, and has switched to tunneling the current connection to that
>    server connection.
> 
> And RFC 2616 (4.3) requires a 200 response to a CONNECT to have a message-body anyway:
> 
>    All responses to the HEAD request method MUST NOT include a
>    message-body, even though the presence of entity-header fields might
>    lead one to believe they do. All 1xx (informational), 204 (no
>    content), and 304 (not modified) responses MUST NOT include a
>    message-body. All other responses do include a message-body,
>    although it MAY be of zero length.
> 
> 
> So to fix things, RFC 2616 4.3 should be updated to include "A successful (2xx) response to a CONNECT request MUST NOT include a message-body." And if 2817 is in-scope for 2616bis then the fact should probably be reiterated there too.
> 
> -- Dan
> 

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