W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

RE: mid-course errors

From: Henry Sanders (Exchange) <henrysa@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:00:06 -0700
Message-Id: <7D9A01DBBFD5CF11AD0F0000F8411F8A55E1AB@ROADKILL>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, 'Jeffrey Mogul' <mogul@pa.dec.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3053
Jeff Mogul writes:

> Does your server or client actually have a list of headers that it
> *does* allow in the footer?  Where did this list come from?
It turns out that our server doesn't check for any headers in the
footer, with a comment in the code indicating that the only footer
defined for 1.1 is Content-MD5:, which we don't support. My recollection
of why this was done this way was fuzzy, so I went back and checked the
mail archives. Around the time of the LA IETF there was some desire to
remove footers entirely from chunked T-E. Phill Hallam objected strongly
to this, and a compromise was reached where Content-MD5 was allowed in
the footer for 1.1 and future versions of HTTP might allow other
headers. The issue was considered closed for draft 04 in
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1996q2/0058.html . The
wording has changed a bit since then (I vaguely remember that happening
as an editorial change) , but I believe the intent is still the same,
which is that only Content-MD5 is valid in an HTTP 1.1 chunked  footer. 

I agree that the text could use some clarification. I think the simplest
change consistent with my understanding of the intent would be to add a
sentence to 14.16 saying "This header is allowed in the chunked
Transfer-Encoding footer". Regardless, our server supporting this hasn't
shipped yet, and I'm willing to change it if there's consensus that
other headers should be allowed in the footer. 

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 1997 15:02:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC