- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:32:45 -0600 (CST)
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Paul Leach wrote: > An alternate proposal, which I believe is simpler and requires less > modification: I like this proposal. It does seem simpler. > > Content-Length, if validly present, is the length of the entity-body (which > is the message-body after transfer codings are removed). It is also the > length of the message-body if no transfer-coding is used. > Content-Length MUST NOT be present if a transfer coding is used. If it is > present in such cases, it is invalid, and the robustness principle says it > should be ignored. > <snip> > > Transfer-Length, if validly present, is the length of the message-body. > Transfer-Length MUST NOT be present on self-delimiting transfer codings. If > it is present in this case, it is invalid, and the robustness principle says > it should be ignored. > This makes it crucially important for every transfer encoding to be EXPLICITLY DEFINED as self-delimiting or non-self-delimiting. > Under these rules, Content-Length is still logically end-to-end -- the > header may not physically be present, but its value if it is ever present is > well-defined end-to-end and the same end-to-end. > This is a virtue of Paul's proposal. > > Digest Auth should drop all reference to Content-Length and replaces it with > "length of entity-body", which is always well-defined and always > determinable given the above rules. > Agreed. John Franks john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Friday, 12 December 1997 08:37:34 UTC