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: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:34:05 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, 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: <20080603173405.GA4931@shareable.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> >Content-MD5 is not useful for dynamically produced entities.
> >As a trailer it might be possible, but how compatible is that?
> Well, unless I'm missing something, it will be hard to send from a 
> servlet (hey, Servlet EG, are you listening...?).

Implementation detail.  If you want this kind of message integrity,
fix the implementation :-)

> >I'm thinking that the solution to these is allowing Content-Length in
> >a chunked trailer, and Content-MD5 too.
> Well, what would they contain in case of a truncated response? Surely 
> not the length/digest of the actual response, because that wouldn't help 
> the client finding out about the truncation...

Truncated responses don't have trailers.  Trailers are at the _end_!

> Maybe something like "final-status" as a new response header would make 
> sense. That way, a server could send an initial 2xx, start sending 
> content, and in case of internal errors could at least signal that 
> something went fatally wrong...

Not a bad idea.  A final-status ought to be able to include an error
entity too.  Not sure how to fit that into the present syntax.

-- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 17:34:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:46 UTC