- From: Daniel DuBois <dan@spyglass.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:04:26 -0800
- To: Patrick Montelo <pmontelo@rafiki.spyglass.com>, swingard@spyglass.com, dladd@spyglass.com, ddubois@spyglass.com
- Cc: pharring@spyglass.com, mlambert@spyglass.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>19.4.6 Introduction of Transfer-Encoding
>... Proxies/gateways MUST remove any transfer coding prior to forwarding a
>message via a MIME-compliant protocol.
>
>(Sounds good, not only can we remove it [per 4.3], we MUST remove it, but)
IIRC, HTTP is not a MIME compliant protocol. The spec writers are talking
here about proxies that forward messages to a mail gateway. (And yeah, a
proxy that has that feature would need to remove Trasnfer-Encoding, since
such a beast will choke any mail software out there.)
>13.5.2 Non-modifiable Headers
>... A cache or non-caching proxy MUST NOT modify or add any of the following
>fields in a response that contains the no-transform Cache-Control
>directive, or in any request:
>Content-Length
>
>Now if we MUST remove Transfer coding, seems like we MUST add a
>Content-Length header?
Seems to me if you remove the transfer encoding, you would have to add a
Content-Length. I don't understand why they included that header amongst
those that couldn't be added/modified couldn't be added. Let's ask them....
Hey HTTP-WG, why can't proxies modify/change Content-Length on no-transform
responses?
-----
Daniel DuBois, Traveling Coderman www.spyglass.com/~ddubois
o The Heroes of Might and Magic II Bible is here!
http://www.spyglass.com/~ddubois/HOMM2.html
Received on Friday, 13 December 1996 15:09:11 UTC