Author martin.panter
Recipients Susumu Koshiba, deronnax, martin.panter, r.david.murray, spaceone
Date 2016-06-04.01:22:45
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1465003365.71.0.62719325325.issue25738@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I suggest to drop the RESET_CONTENT exception. Content-Length: 0 is explicitly allowed by <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.3.6> option a), and is not very different to the general case IMO. Content-Length was added here to help with buggy clients, see Issue 16088.

But while we are here, I think we should avoid Content-Length for 304 Not Modified. See <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.3.2>. This is a special case a bit like HEAD, where the length would refer to a cached response rather than the “error”/explanation message.

IMO this could be treated as a bug fix for 3.5 and 2.7, and no versionchanged is necessary. What do you think?
History
Date User Action Args
2016-06-04 01:22:45martin.pantersetrecipients: + martin.panter, r.david.murray, deronnax, spaceone, Susumu Koshiba
2016-06-04 01:22:45martin.pantersetmessageid: <1465003365.71.0.62719325325.issue25738@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-06-04 01:22:45martin.panterlinkissue25738 messages
2016-06-04 01:22:45martin.pantercreate