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

Re: new editorial issue RANGE_WITH_CONTENTCODING

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:22:25 -0800
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9711181636.aa07503@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4720
>we should add:
>		  Note: a proxy or cache need not actually delete a
>		  hop-by-hop header in a case where its external
>		  behavior would be equivalent to deleting the header
>		  and then adding it again.  For example, a proxy
>		  receiving a response with a non-identity
>		  transfer-coding need not remove that coding, and the
>		  corresponding Transfer-Encoding header field, unless
>		  the response is being sent to a client that has not
>		  sent an appropriate Accept-Transfer header.


>The other problem that we may need to clarify is that if
>a transfer-coding (e.g., "compress") is used with a Range response
>containing multiple ranges, then should the transfer-coding apply
>to the entire "multipart/byteranges" body, or just to the
>parts individually?

The entire body, since Transfer-Encoding is not a MIME header field.
The HTTP/1.1 message data model was designed to be easy to translate
into a future version of HTTP that had better layering (i.e., actual
instead of theoretical layers) between transfer and payload.  That
gets harder if we start pushing HTTP elements inside body parts.

Received on Tuesday, 18 November 1997 16:40:32 UTC

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