- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:54:51 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Personally, I'm inclined to leave it out; H? On 22/10/2010, at 8:09 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 22.10.2010 04:32, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Scheduled for -12. >> >> On 14/07/2010, at 9:41 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> On 14.07.2010 07:14, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> Henrik, >>>> >>>> I think a bit more of a change is necessary to get this right; >>>> >>>>> b) the trailer fields consist entirely of optional metadata, and the recipient could use the message (in a manner acceptable to the server where the field originated) without receiving it. In other words, the server that generated the header (often but not always the origin server) is willing to accept the possibility that the trailer fields might be silently discarded along the path to the client. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Sounds good. Proposed patch:<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/193/193.diff>. >>> >>> Best regards, Julian > > I just checked, and Henrik initially also proposed: > >> And for clarity add the obvious restriction that >>> >>> A proxy server MUST NOT move any existing entity headers to the trailer >>> unless 'a' is fulfilled. > > Do we still want it, and where does it need to go? > > Best regards, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 09:55:33 UTC