Re: About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)

On Dec 7, 2016 6:23 PM, "Jacob Champion" wrote: On 12/07/2016 04:00 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Consider for a moment the case of an HTTP/1.1 upgrade request > unrecognized by a proxy agent. > It was my understanding that this is an impossible situation for a

Re: About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)

On 12/07/2016 04:00 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Consider for a moment the case of an HTTP/1.1 upgrade request unrecognized by a proxy agent. It was my understanding that this is an impossible situation for a conforming proxy, since Upgrade is hop-by-hop. What am I missing? --Jacob

Re: About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)

On Dec 7, 2016 5:04 PM, "Jacob Champion" wrote: [combining replies to your last two emails] > No, not reject -- conforming clients parse (and may discard) 1xx's they don't understand, treating them like 100 Continue, and proxies must forward as-is (unless the proxy was

Re: About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)

[combining replies to your last two emails] On 12/07/2016 02:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Jacob Champion > wrote: On 12/07/2016 12:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:50 AM,

Re: svn commit: r1772678 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./ docs/manual/mod/ include/ modules/http/ server/

Patch incoming. More below... On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:01 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >> Sorry for chiming in so late :-(. > > > Again, no worries... > > On 12/05/2016 03:34 PM, j...@apache.org

Re: About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Jacob Champion > wrote: > >> On 12/07/2016 12:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Jacob Champion >>

Re: About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 12/07/2016 12:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Jacob Champion > > wrote: >> >> What's your end goal? I don't think we can

Re: svn commit: r1772678 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./ docs/manual/mod/ include/ modules/http/ server/

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > Sorry for chiming in so late :-(. Again, no worries... On 12/05/2016 03:34 PM, j...@apache.org wrote: > > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/protocol.c > > URL:

Re: svn commit: r1772678 [1/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./ docs/manual/mod/ include/ modules/http/ server/

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > Sorry for chiming in so late :-(. No worries, good eye... On 12/05/2016 03:34 PM, j...@apache.org wrote: > > Author: jim > > Date: Mon Dec 5 14:34:29 2016 > > New Revision: 1772678 > > > > URL:

Re: About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)

On 12/07/2016 12:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Jacob Champion > wrote: What's your end goal? I don't think we can *prohibit* modules from sending extra headers in 100 responses, but it does make sense

Re: svn commit: r1772678 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./ docs/manual/mod/ include/ modules/http/ server/

Sorry for chiming in so late :-(. On 12/05/2016 03:34 PM, j...@apache.org wrote: > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/protocol.c > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/protocol.c?rev=1772678=1772677=1772678=diff >

About Interim Response Headers (was: Content-Length header for 1xx status codes)

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 12/07/2016 08:31 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> Does anyone have pointers to legitimizing any 100 response >> headers? >> > > Date is called out explicitly (RFC 7231, sec. 7.1.1.2): > >[...] An origin server

Re: Content-Length header for HTTP 204 and 1xx status codes

From a pure protocol point of view, all responses can have headers, I think. But there might be several implementations that do not cope well with them. But if we get some from an upstream server, I think we should forward them. > Am 07.12.2016 um 17:31 schrieb William A Rowe Jr

Re: Content-Length header for HTTP 204 and 1xx status codes

On 12/07/2016 08:31 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Does anyone have pointers to legitimizing any 100 response headers? Date is called out explicitly (RFC 7231, sec. 7.1.1.2): [...] An origin server MAY send a Date header field if the response is in the 1xx (Informational) or 5xx

Re: Content-Length header for HTTP 204 and 1xx status codes

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:05 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Nov 30, 2016 11:46 AM, "Luca Toscano" wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > while working on https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51350 a > user asked why httpd send the "Content-Length:

Re: Content-Length header for HTTP 204 and 1xx status codes

On Nov 30, 2016 11:46 AM, "Luca Toscano" wrote: Hi everybody, while working on https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51350 a user asked why httpd send the "Content-Length: 0" header for HTTP 204 responses given the following statement in the RFC:

Re: Content-Length header for HTTP 204 and 1xx status codes

2016-12-06 9:45 GMT+01:00 Luca Toscano : > Hi Yann, > > 2016-12-05 13:54 GMT+01:00 Yann Ylavic : > >> Hi Luca, >> >> sorry for the delay (overwhelmed these times)... >> > > thanks a lot for the help! > > >> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Luca