-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Michael,
On 4/29/20 15:37, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2020-04-29 um 18:51 schrieb Christopher Schultz: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> Michael, >> >> On 4/28/20 18:06, Michael Osipov wrote: >>> Am 2020-04-20 um 10:25 schrieb Mark Thomas: >>>> On 18/04/2020 21:19, Michael Osipov wrote: >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> the WebDAV servlet still sends a reason phrase on >>>>> multistatus (207).I'd like to drop it in master and 9.0.x. >>>>> It is inconsistent with the behavior with these versions. >>>>> Any objections/opinions on dropping it? >>>> >>>> I agree it is inconsistent and I'm generally in favour of >>>> anything that improves consistentcy, simplifies, etc. >>>> >>>> RFC 4918 (WebDAV) references RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) where the >>>> language is slightly less strong (the client is "not >>>> required" to examine it) than RFC 7230 (the client SHOULD >>>> ignore it). However, even in RFC 2616 an empty reason phrase >>>> is valid. So I think the specs support this change. >>>> >>>> WebDAV clients, particularly the Microsoft implementations, >>>> can have very specific expectations about server behaviour >>>> that are not required by the RFC. I think it would be prudent >>>> to at least test this change to the WebDAV server >>>> implementation with the current Microsoft WebDAV client >>>> implementations before rolling it out. >>> >>> Finally dropped locally. Tested with CarotDAV, WinSCP and >>> Windows WebDAV Mini Redirector (Windows Explorer DAV Client) >>> set with anonymous and SPNEGO authenication. Works like before >>> (with reason phrase). >>> >>> I will go ahead and apply the change to master and 9.0.x. >>> 8.5.x disables the reason phrase by default. Shall this applies >>> to it as well? Any objections? >> >> Seeing how well-received the original change was (drop reason >> phrase), perhaps we should limit this to master and not back-port >> to 9.0, etc. > > I understand your concerns. Please consider that 9.0.x doesn't send > the phrase and doesn't allow to enable it. I think it was an > oversight that this one wasn't dropped earlier. I won't back port > this to 8.5.x and 7.0.x. Let's keep it in 9.0.x and see whether we > receive complains. Is that acceptable? +1 - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/ iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEMmKgYcQvxMe7tcJcHPApP6U8pFgFAl6p+m0ACgkQHPApP6U8 pFhp2RAAtLufhy8Iuaq6OywkrRyHTQ6VvFTHRPVtGpOBX5BNXBFwsfgVU4VG7K4g AZimKlM84s5OIbz671ZOrF9+FmCv8w4n1Ae3paEPEwlRGBv6QPEnIRHpXd1Up2uQ BBt+cZOYGHnBZ1GDC3YNhCJWCQyg8eWVlCA9TqPcG1AYwhu+3F9F1Lfsb9+gsZ0O T6BcRJI2yRvh8kwQFtWeZ4Et4rOCfoL3ZNQYNsAmzjB/85ol+Issz2+tOM/82sl9 vA6dIL6BbyaWoNZU5i+HN30Zr+r5EfOPPiBA72CsZJZhkYdriTx8DNFl/a9qZKly EEyIxioB5z82TtFFqD8ssKUVhnpIZkk3gC34Z7fwdJ1hRHrqZCmc6I3Eili7AdAE P87tqQu9/egL/CMP7EX3xStXlyergJBgjl/sE/lfsHhrpjsV0mUe8BsLiiafPYVY j4HXFx1WfL0NB3XUxEckIqlNIQKauMkvJwxXlQ9zqcCW8hirPNpwnerOl27dNWTn t3geJ6tt9JVa2fpxh61O/x4pVj62ZhASlBtX2T3kOnliHiXMJkz8e92EjiXI+fIS mynM8v11ehyKjmlcWaolgI97QeRaT2Swg/hl/d0ezymp9J8Fo377V8sTlnV6TNo3 D3UIeiq1IFBoY1Ad6r1N1wb2K9My+no4daRxI0aSqWzWOYeBITY= =obsQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
