W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: A question about Content-Length header

From: Peter <cnmjbm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:23:52 -0800
Message-ID: <A6AFACB947AA46FCB6C02742B03B5D1F@XP4ANDROID>
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Hi, Adrien.

Thanks a lot for your response.

In Sec 4.4 of RFC 2616, there seems another alternative way (ie. 
"multipart/...") to decide message length.

If there is other alternative than chunking, why would you think chunking is 
a MUST?

Thanks.

peter

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: "Peter" <cnmjbm@gmail.com>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: A question about Content-Length header


>
> there is no other way to signal the end of the message that the client
> is sending.
>
> A server has the option to close the connection to signal end of message
> if no Content-Length or chunking is not used. A client for obvious
> reasons does not have this option.
>
> So in short, I would say the answer is yes, if the client message has an
> entity body, and it will not send a Content-Length for whatever reason,
> it must use chunking.
>
> Adrien
>
>
> Peter wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Julian.
>>
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>> Frustratedly, i still did not get an explicit answer from reading the
>> section.
>>
>> Perhaps i should ask it this way:
>>
>> MUST an HTTP 1.1 *client* transfer-encode a message body in chunks
>> and send Transfer-Encoding header if the client can/will not send
>> Content-Length header for some reason?
>>
>> Looking forward to a either "YES" or "NO" answer according to official
>> interpretation of RFC 2616.
>>
>> Thanks!!
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
> 
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 20:27:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:00 GMT