W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:40:12 +1300
Message-ID: <4744A5BC.8000803@qbik.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


ah, thanks.

OK, this is an issue close to my heart, since it affects POST / PUT 
through a proxy which uses any sort of challenge/response (i.e NTLM) 
authentication mechanism.

Our users have major problems with this.

It would be great if the concept of chunking could be stretched to 
include notification of an abort of transfer.

i.e. send a chunk with a length of "-1" or something.  Obviously that's 
a protocol level change, but it would allow the connection to be 
maintained after an abort being signaled.

I haven't seen a client that uses chunking for POST or PUT though - I 
guess in most if not all cases, the client knows the content length, and 
so specifies it.  Should we be putting a stronger emphasis on clients to 
use chunking in all cases?  That has down-sides as well, since then the 
client can't advertise apriori the length it will be sending (to allow 
for proxy / server policy evaluation based on upload sizes etc).

This actually could be a good use-case to use chunking AND specify a 
content-length header (I hear the groans) - something specifically 
deprecated in the spec.

People commonly want to limit download and upload sizes.  The only way 
to limit upload sizes efficiently is if clients sent Content-Length 
headers.  Otherwise you have to receive / process data until you hit the 
limit.

But actually I believe in the end, the issue can't be properly addressed 
without a major protocol version change, one that then incorporates the 
concept of negotiating (i.e. obtaining mutual consent for) transfer of 
message bodies from client to server (as opposed to only having 
negotiation in the other direction).

Regards

Adrien

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Adrien de Croy wrote:
>   
>> what sort of network error is being envisaged here?
>>     
>
> This is about the server telling you it won't handle the request while
> it is being sent (e.g., you are trying to PUT something to a resource
> that requires authentication, or after the 42nd chunk the server decides
> the entity is longer than it is willing to handle). It's not about any
> lower level network problems.
>   

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 21:39:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT