On 5 nov 2012, at 09:11, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 05.11.2012 00:21, Thomas Åkesson wrote: >> I did some tests with curl --head just as a sanity check. It seems to be a >> good choice for access control. I primarily wanted to see that HEAD requests >> were not allowed in situations where GET is not (e.g. when user has access >> in directories below). >> >> The HEAD requests I performed (minimal curl command) did not cause the >> server to provide Content-Length when returning "200 OK". > > Which is precisely what I was talking about in my other post. Such HEAD > responses are invalid. If we implement HEAD, we have to do it correctly.
Right, I was just confirming that. I think this is approaching off-topic for this thread. The server (mod_dav_svn) currently does respond to HEAD requests without Content-Length, which appears to be invalid. Perhaps a separate issue/thread should discuss whether the HEAD response should be changed to conform with the specification. On-topic, looking at the HTTP RFC, the HEAD request makes a lot of sense for access control purposes and that gives the server a chance to optimize the response even if, worst case, only the response bandwidth would be gained. /Thomas Å.
