atom feed11 messages in org.apache.tomcat.devHTTP response reason phrases
FromSent OnAttachments
Christopher SchultzJan 24, 2017 11:08 am 
Mark ThomasJan 24, 2017 12:03 pm 
Josh SorefJan 24, 2017 5:02 pm 
Rainer JungJan 25, 2017 2:09 am 
Rainer JungJan 25, 2017 2:27 am 
Romain Manni-BucauJan 25, 2017 2:30 am 
Christopher SchultzJan 25, 2017 11:51 am 
Romain Manni-BucauJan 25, 2017 1:46 pm 
Rémy MaucheratJan 25, 2017 2:40 pm 
Huxing ZhangJan 25, 2017 6:54 pm 
Josh SorefJan 29, 2017 9:39 am 
Subject:HTTP response reason phrases
From:Christopher Schultz (
Date:Jan 24, 2017 11:08:50 am



I'm cross-posting dev@ and users@, but please only reply to dev@ if you'd like to get involved in this discussion.

I'd like to openly-discuss r1702765 [1]. There have been some complaints on both users@ and dev@ and some BZ issues filed against Tomcat 8.5 and 9.0 for removing the reason phrase. It happened in r1702765 with no referenced BZ issue and was first released with Tomcat 8.5.0 -- the initial release of Tomcat 8.5 -- as well as 9.0.0.M1 .

This issue doesn't really affect me, but some recent conversations about the "stability" (in terms of "things not changing") of Tomcat have me thinking about the implications of making this change in Tomcat 8.5.x and not in just Tomcat 9.0.x.

It is well-known within this community that Tomcat 8.0.x and Tomcat 8.5.x are distinct versions, but since the major version number is the same, many have expectations that nothing serious is going to change. Of course, 8.5.x has *many* serious changes to it with respect to Tomcat 8.0.x. But this one seems to be tripping a lot of people up.

Those who are filing bugs, etc. are quite adamant that the reason phrase is "required" for certain things. To be sure, the reason phrase will only be required by non-compliant clients, and so technically the client is at fault, here.

I'm wondering what the wider community thinks about this change and whether or not we should consider reverting it for Tomcat 8.5.x.

Again, please reply to the dev@ list, since that's where this discussion belongs. I just wanted to make sure I reached the widest audience possible to begin a discussion.

Thanks, - -chris

[1] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYh6ZCAAoJEBzwKT+lPKRYnJgQAIe57jJw2iUk86I63NGsqPnY IKWjZoMuqd8vlczn8/FF/drWMV7ObYsrhsYmJATR5iVI+/xdEXB7n8cMO7B7+ryV Sxe1Tcmh/tBNJ83a8C+zSHWvnIELYRonHm9syApa7onPKcsoEe6MTrsdL1M+An9U 9IvXtH3BfYKAynze5pkNS6I+ILjgWvNSclJFHmDNHWmRPyqdob4OtMWkSSU3qRBX FfbEk9IMrEbIit6CH75dw9xfaUDDRudnw3MBkKaV8VOLUoykvSMK1w9GdufO4ohP Dw/+l6CkXl8xCSRcNwXrDdJcisT9gN6Ey7+g7zrgAcg62RP3ftrQMCzT2VDQV3b4 IlZfTi+vEdsKKzGUdH+OLbN0+hiW0bnuxJmTG2zQSGwKsIh78aFdPKShv4u22XKB xfcKn9c6XGUHH88j0ZVSOLh2AmORCvuDfQNA3NJCOceRwQsV1OHAda65fFlkjyiz Q/yMMV8VlblGJRItN1nEwheIs9ru3MokRBhaXQ78ehSkRxbkIPawP6ZSiojmv/80 aKx3/T413GOK4e18sK3XFHP4NowkR7VR/a1R5Py7L2kpzhMJcc4bstYuE9hugfiN BaECAT66qahCmP0xVoiFEB2A0+sD0wRKZ6K1gPCarPdLKh6cX4poRcMK4i0jgG2a cao/Frb1y8JDm8maw1Q8 =oQCi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----