We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#rfc.section.4.3.7.p.4:
A server MUST generate a Content-Length field with a value of "0" if no payload body is to be sent in the response.
That is incorrect, as the status code could be 204, or the response might come with chunked encoding (even when empty).
This is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5806.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What purpose is this requirement serving? It seems to have the effect of prohibiting Transfer-Encoding: chunked with a zero length payload.
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Shouldn't RFC 7230, "3.3.3. Message Body Length" be sufficient for determining payload sizes?
Sorry, something went wrong.
Agreed. The text makes it sound as if OPTIONS is somehow special. Giving advice might be good, but the use of normative keywords makes this confusing.
The simplest fix might indeed be to remove the sentence.
Change tracking (#235)
24599f8
Removed superfluous requirement about setting Content-Length from the…
1b632ed
… description of the OPTIONS method (#235)
Merge pull request #239 from httpwg/reschke-i235
0c03cdf
Removed superfluous requirement about setting Content-Length from the description of the OPTIONS method (#235)
reschke
No branches or pull requests
https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#rfc.section.4.3.7.p.4:
That is incorrect, as the status code could be 204, or the response might come with chunked encoding (even when empty).
This is https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5806.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: