- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:56:37 -0700
- To: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'marc@ckm.ucsf.edu'" <marc@ckm.ucsf.edu>
I'm not sure. I have been thinking about it some, and have the following preliminary observations: 1. It could only be used if you knew you were talking to a 1.2 application. 2. A 1.2 proxy talking to a 1.1 or earlier application would have to convert. 3. Signatures or hashes would have to be computed on the canonical, full name, form. I haven't seen any showstoppers yet to using it in 1.2. >---------- >From: Marc Salomon[SMTP:marc@ckm.ucsf.edu] >Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 1996 11:35 AM >To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com >Subject: short names for headers > >from minutes, HTTP Working Group, IETF June 96, Montreal >|Aug 1: (Leach) draft on sticky headers, short names for headers, and > >Can short names for headers (Good Idea) be compatible with existing practice >in >HTTP/1.x or must it wait until 2.x? Does allowing aliases for the names of >the >header fields alter the general message parsing algorithm or message >semantics >as specified in 3.1 of HTTP/1.1? > >-marc > >-- > >
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 1996 12:43:53 UTC