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

Re: i28 proposed replacement text

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:07:10 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, 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: <1212516430.11964.10.camel@henriknordstrom.net>

On tis, 2008-06-03 at 19:23 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Well, unless I'm missing something, it will be hard to send from a 
> servlet (hey, Servlet EG, are you listening...?).

Content-MD5 either needs the server to buffer the response, or sent in
the trailer. Same for Content-Length except that it can't be sent in a

Claiming that those isn't usable for a servlet is plain wrong. It's all
an implementation detail, and how feasible it is depends primarily on
the size of the response.

> 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...


> 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...

Problem there is that recipients are not required to care about trailers
and those who don't will misread the response as 100% successful.. so
you are better off simply closing the connection in the middle of the
response and log the error locally. The next-hop will notice the error,
but there is no guarantee the final recipient will..

The scope of this WG is to clarify HTTP/1.1 and correct errors, not
HTTP/1.2 (or 2.0) fixing the shortcomings of HTTP/1.1.

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 18:08:09 UTC

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