W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

RE: short names for headers

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:56:37 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-960710185637Z-20950@abash1.microsoft.com>
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>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1084
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

2. A 1.2 proxy talking to a 1.1 or earlier application would have to

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
>HTTP/1.x or must it wait until 2.x?  Does allowing aliases for the names of
>header fields alter the general message parsing algorithm or message
>as specified in 3.1 of HTTP/1.1?
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 1996 12:43:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC