On 13 Aug 2002, Geff wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 09:30, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > On 13 Aug 2002, Geff wrote:
> >
> > > 1. mod_proxy is RFC compliant - So why break apache to
> > > accommodate M$'s lack of ability to read and implement a standard
> > > that was published in June 1999?
> >
> > IMO, removing Content-Length header from 304 responses will not change
> > alleged mod_proxy compliance. In fact, one could argue that removing
> > entity headers is the right thing to do for proxy implementations
> > trying to follow IETF cornerstone principle of "garbage in, compliance
> > out".
> >
>
> But to your point of Garbage in -> compliance out. 10.3.5 says, "no
> entity headers in a 304 response." So it seems to make more sense to
> remove all or none.
That is why I prepended the second paragraph with "personally" :-).
Yes, if one follows IETF principle to the letter, one should probably
remove all entity headers. However, real-world operation often
requires supporting known incompliant behavior. That is why I would
not try to clean up garbage more than we know is necessary.
$0.02,
Alex.
--
| HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
| all of the above - PolyBox appliance
