Erroneous handling of long request uris?

[Maxim Dounin]

Hello!

On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 08:57:53PM -0500, mitch.socialcast wrote:

[...]

> To me, this suggests that the status-line-less response that 
> nginx provides when it encounters an extremely long URI is not 
> compliant with the HTTP 0.9 specification.  If this is not the 
> case, please let me know.

Do you actually read links you provided?  The same document you 
are citing states:

% <http version>
% identifies the HyperText Transfer Protocol version being used by 
% the server. For the version described by this document version it 
% is "HTTP/1.0" (without the quotes).

And obviously it's HTTP/1.0 specs, not HTTP/0.9.

Normative syntax for HTTP/0.9 (as well as one for HTTP/1.0) may be 
found in RFC 1945, see here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945

And it states that HTTP/0.9 response is just entity body.

> Regardless of our interpretations of the HTTP 0.9 
> specification(s), I feel that the vast majority of HTTP clients 
> have abandoned the nearly two-decade old HTTP 0.9 protocol in 
> favor of HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 -- servers which implement these 
> protocols clearly MUST return a status line in order to be 
> compliant; in light of this does it really make sense to behave 
> inappropriately according to the successors to HTTP 0.9 to 
> ensure support for (what I assume to be) a miniscule fraction of 
> the set of HTTP clients in 2010?

Well, I suggest re-reading RFC 2616 and RFC 1945.

Maxim Dounin