On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ahh... So none of this is really needed then. At least, it should >> be reverted. >> >> > Well, as I understand the "new rfc", the old code is broken too. > > However, the fix should not continue with the content-length (if any) when > the transfer-encoding is not (ended-by-)chunked, but return 400 instead (or > 502 when it applies to a response). > Clearly, return 400/502 whenever an transfer-encoding is given and is not (ended-by-)chunked, am I missing something ?
