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: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:55:34 +0200
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1212674134.25475.20.camel@henriknordstrom.net>

On tor, 2008-06-05 at 05:01 -0400, Yves Lafon wrote:

> Ok, so if the proxy gets a reply using connection closure to signal the 
> end of the reply, should the proxy always treat this as an incomplete 
> transaction ?

No, only if the length disagrees with Content-Length or if chunked
encoding was not properly terminated.

A message without content-lenght or chunked encoding is validly
terminated by closing the connection.

Servers who require the client to ALWAYS be able to detect truncated
messages SHOULD use Content-Length. It's the only transmission method
where the message format guarantees possible end-to-end detection of
truncation (ignoring setups with non-transparent proxies perforing
content encoding in the mix..). Yes, this rules out using
Transfer-Encoding. Additionally it's wise to use Content-MD5 for real
integrity checks.

Servers only needing this at best effort level is free to use
transfer-encoding, any of the defined ones or combinations, but be aware
that the transfer encoding MAY be removed before the response reaches
the recipient. They SHOULD NOT delimit messages by closing the

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 13:56:36 UTC

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