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

Re: HTTP/1.1 ISSUE: TRAILER_FIELDS - Proposed Resolution

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:34:16 -0800
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9711181347.aa15792@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4715
>The Trailer general field value indicates that the given set of header
>fields are present in the trailer of a message encoded with chunked
>       Trailer  = "Trailer" ":" 1#field-name
>An HTTP/1.1 sender MAY include a Trailer header field in a message using
>chunked transfer-coding with a non-empty trailer. Doing so allows the
>recipient to know which header fields to expect in the trailer.
>If no Trailer header field is present, the trailer SHOULD NOT include any
>other header fields than Content-MD5 and Authentication-Info.

I don't think this exception is necessary.  As far as I know, none of the
existing HTTP/1.1 servers put anything in the trailer yet.

>A server MUST NOT include any other header fields unless the "chunked"
>transfer-coding is present in the request as an accepted transfer-coding in
>the Accept-Transfer field.

Likewise, that is unnecessary.  We can live with the discrepancy between
RFC 2068 and now, since nobody uses these features yet.  Somebody should
correct me if I'm wrong [and they do care].

>Message headers listed in the Trailer header field MUST NOT include the
>Transfer-Encoding and the Trailer header field.

and Content-Length.

Received on Tuesday, 18 November 1997 14:26:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC