W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: i28 proposed replacement text

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:35:53 +0100
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080602103553.GB31032@shareable.org>

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > partial or absolute detection ? If the format allows multiple concatenated 
> > entries, and integrity check is true if you reach exactly the end of one 
> > entry, you have a highly probable integrity check but not an absolute one.
> 
> You don't hav an absolute one even if Content-Length matches or chunked
> encoding is terminated proper. It all depends on where the failure was
> and how communication was to that..

Agree, except we can at least identify when it's not the protocol
itself introducing undetected failure.

> In any situation where there may be
> some form or proxy inbetween (including servers running scripts) both
> Content-Length and chunking is synthetic and hop-by-hop. As recipient
> you can only be absolutely sure that if there is a mismatch then
> something is wrong..

According to RFC2616, Content-Length is an entity header and an
end-to-end header, therefore should not be synthesised hop-by-hop.
Yeah, I know :-)

-- Jamie
Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 10:36:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:48 GMT