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: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:57:09 -0500
Message-Id: <199711182257.RAA25971@devnix.agranat.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4716

>>>>> "RTF" == Roy T Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu> writes:

>> If no Trailer header field is present, the trailer SHOULD NOT include any
>> other header fields than Content-MD5 and Authentication-Info.

RTF> I don't think this exception is necessary.  As far as I know, none of the
RTF> 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.

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

  Released versions of EmWeb have been putting these in chunked
  trailers for several months.

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 1997 15:11:31 UTC

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