This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author demian.brecht
Recipients demian.brecht, jimr
Date 2015-02-27.20:30:41
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
My concern about this is around the combination of the following two passages:

draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-14, Section 7.3:

>   Bodies on GET requests have no defined semantics.  Note that sending
>   a body on a GET request might cause some existing implementations to
>   reject the request.

RFC 7230, Section 3.3.2:

> The presence of a message body in a request is signaled by a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header field.

My concern around the above is the possibility that servers may have implementations that reject requests with methods that are not expecting bodies solely on the existence of the Content-Length header rather than the value (which may be 0). Without a good amount of research around whether or not this would be an actual problem in practice, I wouldn’t be comfortable adding Content-Length header to every request.

> My feeling is that stripping out Content-Length for GET requests could cause problems for some code that for whatever reason uses this

That’s definitely a valid concern. What if the logic was tweaked a little:

expecting_len = method.upper() in _METHODS_EXPECTING_BODIES or \
    body is not None

if expecting_len and 'content-length' not in header_names:

That way, if someone is intentionally sending a body in a GET request, the value of Content-Length would still be automatically added, but would still be set to 0 for all other cases where bodies are expected.
Date User Action Args
2015-02-27 20:30:41demian.brechtsetrecipients: + demian.brecht, jimr
2015-02-27 20:30:41demian.brechtlinkissue23539 messages
2015-02-27 20:30:41demian.brechtcreate