Re: [Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

On 28/01/2021 16:54, bugzi...@apache.org wrote: > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 > > --- Comment #83 from Suzon Ali --- Yet another idiot who fails to realise that all the links from Bugzilla are "no follow". I'll get this vandalism cleaned up. Mark

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #83 from Suzon Ali --- https://allnewjobcircular.com/hsc-bm-computer-office-application-assignment/;>HSC BM Computer Office Application Assignment along with the more relative term is for everyone is that of

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #82 from Suzon Ali --- The  https://allnewjobcircular.com/ssc-syllabus-pdf/;>SSC Syllabus 2021 is available now for everyone. https://allnewjobcircular.com/hsc-syllabus-pdf/;>HSC Syllabus 2021 can make a good help for every

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #81 from Suzon Ali --- I am very much delighted with your information. You can get the same on me here as you can see now at https://resultofficial.com/;>Result Official can be the most demanded in the world with accurate

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #80 from Suzon Ali --- Thanks for your information about https://allnewjobcircular.com/hsc-result/;>HSC Result 2020 now. Then https://allnewjobcircular.com/hsc-auto-pass-result/;>HSC Auto Pass Result 2020 can be the most demanded

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Matthew Buckett changed: What|Removed |Added CC||buck...@bumph.org --- Comment #79

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Julian Reschke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||julian.resc...@gmx.de -- You are

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #78 from Ralf Hauser --- see also Bug 62964 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #77 from Julian Reschke --- (In reply to Ralf Hauser from comment #72) > First, there are many error conditions for which no precise 4xx or 5xx code > is defined. So in this way, the reason might be helpful.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #76 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #74) > (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #73) > > (In reply to Ralf Hauser from comment #72) > > > First, there are many error

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #75 from Ralf Hauser --- (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #73) > No, use a given status code and augment it with application/problem+json or > similar. The Status text cannot be set via Servlet API anyway.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #74 from Christopher Schultz --- (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #73) > (In reply to Ralf Hauser from comment #72) > > First, there are many error conditions for which no precise 4xx or 5xx

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #73 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Ralf Hauser from comment #72) > First, there are many error conditions for which no precise 4xx or 5xx code > is defined. So in this way, the reason might be helpful.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #72 from Ralf Hauser --- First, there are many error conditions for which no precise 4xx or 5xx code is defined. So in this way, the reason might be helpful. While I understand that an html browser can display more

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #71 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #70) > That is a view although it is perhaps a tad harsh. > > Regardless, the world is moving towards HTTP/2 and HTTP/2 doesn't have a > reason

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #70 from Mark Thomas --- That is a view although it is perhaps a tad harsh. Regardless, the world is moving towards HTTP/2 and HTTP/2 doesn't have a reason phrase so this is a situation developers are going to

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #69 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to William Watson from comment #68) > I believe an option to send a reason phrase should be maintained in Tomcat 9. > > The reason phrase should be ignored by RFC-compliant

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #68 from William Watson --- I believe an option to send a reason phrase should be maintained in Tomcat 9. The reason phrase should be ignored by RFC-compliant client software. But RFC compliant software is not

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #67 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Fred Simon from comment #66) > For info Debian Apt (some may think it's also IoT - as Trash) is also > hardcoded to expect a reason phrase :( > Was fixed for http: >

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #66 from Fred Simon --- For info Debian Apt (some may think it's also IoT - as Trash) is also hardcoded to expect a reason phrase :( Was fixed for http:

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #65 from Olivier Jaquemet --- Hi, Just so you know, BitKinex WebDAV client is impacted by this missing reason phrase and it can no longer access any webdav servlet configured in Tomcat unless

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Christopher Schultz changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #63 from Christopher Schultz --- First of all, let's all settle down. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this change is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing and whether options should exist to

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #62 from mgrigorov --- (In reply to Ralph Moser from comment #61) > Your next argument is that you are going to provide maintenance forever for > 8.5. That's great but we may want to use new features. Also we

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #61 from Ralph Moser --- Ok. You have the code to add the reason phrase. It's in contrast to headers not easily fixable in most reverse proxies. Why aren't you just keeping the option to add it? We have

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #60 from Mark Thomas --- To provide a some context / background. 7.0.x, 8.0.x always send the reason phrase 8.5.x does not send the reason phrase by default but can be configured to do so 9.0.x does not send the

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #59 from mgrigorov --- (In reply to thorsten.meinl from comment #58) > Even if this change doesn't break clients it will give a very bad impression > to users. For example if you use Java to issue HTTP request

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #58 from thorsten.me...@knime.com --- Even if this change doesn't break clients it will give a very bad impression to users. For example if you use Java to issue HTTP request and and error was returned by the server, the exception

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #57 from Silas Smith --- (In reply to mgrigorov from comment #56) > > Why you can use old clients and not use old servers ?! > 6.x has been just discontinued, so I expect that 8.5.x will be maintained > for

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #56 from mgrigorov --- (In reply to Silas Smith from comment #55) > I'm missing the point about why it's so important for tomcat to no longer > send the reason phrase, such that even keeping it as optional is

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #55 from Silas Smith --- I'm missing the point about why it's so important for tomcat to no longer send the reason phrase, such that even keeping it as optional is being so strongly argued against? I'm glad

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #54 from Blazej Bucko --- Yes, that's true. But, according to older spec, it's perfectly legal for clients to rely on this information. And removing the reason phrase breaks them. -- You are receiving this

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #53 from Mark Thomas --- (In reply to Blazej Bucko from comment #52) > They were not broken according to the first RFC. They broke around 2014 when > new RFC was published. Nope. From RFC 2616 (dated 1999):

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #52 from Blazej Bucko --- They were not broken according to the first RFC. They broke around 2014 when new RFC was published. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #51 from slav...@gmail.com --- I agree, but there lot of "broken" software, working everywhere in the world Isn't too early to drop legacy support? Even apache 2.4 proxy stops working without reason phrase ProxyPass

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #50 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to slavb18 from comment #49) > Cannot understand, why, without any reason, all legacy clients should be > broken with server update. They where already broken before. You

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #49 from slav...@gmail.com --- Cannot understand, why, without any reason, all legacy clients should be broken with server update. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #48 from Violeta Georgieva --- Hi, (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #47) > (In reply to Violeta Georgieva from comment #45) > > Hi, > > > > A new Connector configuration 'sendReasonPhrase' is added.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #47 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Violeta Georgieva from comment #45) > Hi, > > A new Connector configuration 'sendReasonPhrase' is added. When this > attribute is set to 'true', a reason phrase will be

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #46 from Remy Maucherat --- Ok, it's a good compromise then if 8.0 indeed does not go on (I'll believe that when it actually happens ;) ). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Violeta Georgieva changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #44 from mgrigorov --- +1 for the change! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe,

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #43 from Violeta Georgieva --- (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #42) > Ok, I thought the 8.0 plan was long gone. But the patch is only for 8.5 then > ? If so, then I can withdraw the -1. The patch is

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #42 from Remy Maucherat --- Ok, I thought the 8.0 plan was long gone. But the patch is only for 8.5 then ? If so, then I can withdraw the -1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #41 from Mark Thomas --- One of the main reasons 8.0.x is maintained is because this option isn't available in 8.5.x. (The other is the sendfile issues which I think we are getting to the bottom of). The patch

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #40 from Remy Maucherat --- -1. It should be removed at some point, so let it be now. It turns out (given what I see) that we're going to maintain 7.0 and 8.0 for at least as long as 8.5, so it's good enough. --

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #39 from Violeta Georgieva --- Hi, I created a patch that adds an option for sending a reason phrase with the response. https://github.com/apache/tomcat85/pull/7 By default a reason phrase will not be sent

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #38 from Ralph Moser --- Please provide some option to reenable the reason phrase. We have several embedded systems which are not able to work without it. Yes they are not standard compliant but it's not

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #37 from Neil Brown --- Hi, I've read through the discussion of this issue to date, in both the original bug report and this enhancement request. The Reason Phrase may be optional in the HTTP spec,

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #36 from Todd Pierce --- Appeal to Reason (phrase). As I stated in comment 4, my interpretation is the spec does not state that the reason phrase is optional, it simply says it is allowed to be zero

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #35 from Blazej Bucko --- But it is not explicitly forbidden (especially when one reads the next sentence). It would also mean that, according to rfc2616, humans are forbidden to look at Status Code. I

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #34 from Mark Thomas --- (In reply to Blazej Bucko from comment #33) > That's true. But client that relies on information provided in Reason Phrase > is also spec-compliant. And you are implying that it's not.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #33 from Blazej Bucko --- That's true. But client that relies on information provided in Reason Phrase is also spec-compliant. And you are implying that it's not. -- You are receiving this mail because:

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #32 from Mark Thomas --- (In reply to Blazej Bucko from comment #31) > OK. I'd also like to point out that RFC 7230 mentioned in some of the > comments is quite new (2014). Even legacy systems (in this case

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #31 from Blazej Bucko --- OK. I'd also like to point out that RFC 7230 mentioned in some of the comments is quite new (2014). Even legacy systems (in this case systems that are older than 2-3 years), which

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #30 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Blazej Bucko from comment #29) > Are you sure that you are still spec-compliant? rfc2616 defines Reason > Phrase as part of Status Line. Additionally, spec suggests that

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #29 from Blazej Bucko --- Are you sure that you are still spec-compliant? rfc2616 defines Reason Phrase as part of Status Line. Additionally, spec suggests that it is for automata only clients are not

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #28 from Ken DeLong --- Our situation is the same as Todd's: we can and do upgrade our own firmware, but cannot update the manufacturer's. I tried making a Valve that wrapped the Response object, and

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #27 from Todd Pierce --- (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #26) > (In reply to Ken DeLong from comment #25) > > We have switched to another chip maker, and in any event, the chips that are > >

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #26 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Ken DeLong from comment #25) > We have switched to another chip maker, and in any event, the chips that are > out in the field are out there, no way to upgrade except by

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #25 from Ken DeLong --- We have switched to another chip maker, and in any event, the chips that are out in the field are out there, no way to upgrade except by replacing them. -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #24 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Ken DeLong from comment #22) > I talked to our firmware guys - the offending code is actually in Texas > Instruments firmware on the chip we use. So there are likely

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #23 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Ralf Hauser from comment #21) > I am also in favour of allowing the reason code. > > Although the discussion so far appears to be odd. > > > "HTTP/1.1 200 Fine, mate!"

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #22 from Ken DeLong --- I talked to our firmware guys - the offending code is actually in Texas Instruments firmware on the chip we use. So there are likely many devices affected, although I'm sure not all

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #21 from Ralf Hauser --- I am also in favour of allowing the reason code. Although the discussion so far appears to be odd. > "HTTP/1.1 200 Fine, mate!" is probably of little value. However in particular in the

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #20 from Christopher Schultz --- (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #16) > (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #15) > > The only good place to put all these non upgradeable IoT devices is

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #19 from Ken DeLong --- And mine are in consumer electronic devices... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #18 from Todd Pierce --- (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #15) > The only good place to put all these non upgradeable IoT devices is the > trash. In my case the devices are head units inside

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #17 from Josh Soref --- These devices should be behind a firewall/proxy (to protect them from the scary Internet). Your firewall/proxy can manage the 200 OK fix for you. That way if you upgrade to Tomcat 9,

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #16 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #15) > The only good place to put all these non upgradeable IoT devices is the > trash. Therefore, IoT = Internet of Trash -- You are

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #15 from Remy Maucherat --- The only good place to put all these non upgradeable IoT devices is the trash. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #14 from Ken DeLong --- For a short time, I'm happy to run on 8.0.x (that's what I'm doing now). But that's unsustainable; eventually the rest of my tech stack (Spring Boot) will outpace me and I'll be in a

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #13 from Mark Thomas --- Is running on 7.0.x or 8.0.x not an option? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #12 from Ken DeLong --- Our software interfaces with IoT devices which contain firmware (beyond our control) that expects the "OK" (they parse for "200 OK"; just "200" is parsed as an error). I'm sympathetic

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Ken DeLong changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #11 from Mateusz Nowakowski --- >What about "HTTP/1.1 200 Fine, mate!"? This would work or hard requirement for >"OK"? For me it is not a requirement to tune reason phase. However I dig into it and saw that there

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #10 from Josh Soref --- https://github.com/jech/polipo/blob/master/tunnel.c#L302 const char *message = "HTTP/1.1 200 Tunnel established\r\n\r\n"; -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #9 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Mateusz Nowakowski from comment #8) > >Do your clients require just some text after the space or do they really > >analyze >the text for predefined values? > > They

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #8 from Mateusz Nowakowski --- >Do your clients require just some text after the space or do they really >analyze >the text for predefined values? They analyze the text, however they are compatible with previous

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #7 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Mateusz Nowakowski from comment #6) > Facts: > 8.0.39 still returns the reason phase. > 8.5.x and onward do not return the reason phase. > > Purpose of this story is to

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Mateusz Nowakowski changed: What|Removed |Added Version|8.0.x-trunk |8.5.x-trunk ---

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Mark Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matih...@o2.pl ---

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #4 from Todd Pierce --- I suggest that the spec for HTTTP 1.1 is ambiguous regarding whether the reason phrase is optional at all. It says that the reson phrase is defined as zero or more text

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #3 from Todd Pierce --- Reinstating the reason phrase to 8.0.x would be a good outcome. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Christopher Schultz changed: What|Removed |Added Version|8.5.x-trunk

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 --- Comment #1 from Remy Maucherat --- No. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

[Bug 60362] Missing reason phrase in response

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362 Mark Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement