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

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Thu, 15 September 2016 20:12 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 164E612B023 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gbiv.com
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 XuPH0iaEpn7d for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:12:48 -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 BED2112B3B7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bkcx4-0004Lu-2F for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:08:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:08:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bkcx4-0004Lu-2F@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1bkcws-0004KV-Fx for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:07:54 +0000
Received: from sub5.mail.dreamhost.com ([208.113.200.129] helo=homiemail-a122.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.1:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1bkcwr-0005Ky-56 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:07:53 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a122.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a122.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B846000530D; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=content-type :mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=ojkO2ssOUzoHVLnQ4ayYUoJ1gm0=; b=UI0u176lVrYO3esXl7ae8/j4xiXS ZHjdYS+OWXeR3+QK8DimUyaJ2Uspr7eSrlchyhpaeJGT7OcsigudVpzd0xbbyjSF Jg4eXuuXP/iAUz+H9I2H/Yixx9y5d9YnjdPQPKdOOF8/3e4TVAQDeKHP6VGGO38l a7XUkW3P/2BlJcI=
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (ip68-228-71-159.oc.oc.cox.net [68.228.71.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a122.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BC3A60005307; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzxyBbk2DfGd+0B_+pMpgWN6C_6O3FYUy_HcC5P5EtrOvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:07:29 -0700
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <CBE27C63-29B0-437C-92AB-5B2E100F4153@gbiv.com>
References: <CANatvzzZsd1HfCWowjXc5UwmgDgUqjRs3vyyU1qtyvKkPub7Fw@mail.gmail.com> <EEF6459F-D45A-40B2-AEF9-8E2F1C4E1C24@mnot.net> <CANatvzxyBbk2DfGd+0B_+pMpgWN6C_6O3FYUy_HcC5P5EtrOvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.113.200.129; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a122.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bkcwr-0005Ky-56 b3405ab6d61adc17836aacb9ddef6cf5
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/CBE27C63-29B0-437C-92AB-5B2E100F4153@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32402
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 Sep 14, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you very much for the clarification.
> 
> So to paraphrase, the general rule for handling request body is
> defined in section 3.3.3 of RFC 7230 as:
> 
>   6.  If this is a request message and none of the above are true, then
>       the message body length is zero (no message body is present).
> 
> which means that in HTTP, there is no distinction between a request
> with zero-length body and a request _without_ a body.
> 
> That means it is completely up to the HTTP client to whether or not to
> send `content-length: 0` for such requests, though each implementation
> may decide to send or not, depending on interoperability issues that
> might exist.

Yes, there is no semantic distinction.

....Roy