This has been the object of some debate, read Lisa's errata rejection of ID
1081 and 1353...
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc1123
On Sep 16, 2017 10:00, "Eric Covener" wrote:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16,
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * If strict mode ever becomes the default, this should be folded
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM, wrote:
>>
>> +/*
>> + * If strict mode ever becomes the default, this should be folded into
>> + * fix_hostname_non_v6()
>> + */
>> +static apr_status_t
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM, wrote:
> Author: sf
> Date: Sun Dec 30 01:23:24 2012
> New Revision: 1426877
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1426877=rev
> Log:
> Add an option to enforce stricter HTTP conformance
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/server/vhost.c
> URL:
Hi Roy,
On Sunday 30 December 2012, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Thanks for this work, but I don't consider HTTP conformance to be
an option. These are checks we should be making while parsing
the received message, not as a separate pass, and in many cases
they are required to result in a 400,
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for this work, but I don't consider HTTP conformance to be
an option. These are checks we should be making while parsing
the received message, not as a separate pass, and in many cases
they are required to result in a 400, 500, or 502 response.
I am trying to get HTTPbis ready