Re: ISSUES LIST: Chunked Encoding

>I don't, however, see any overlap
>between the two.  If there are overlapping cases, describing them
>would help me a lot in understanding the problem.

1	Signed live video feed.
2	Signed content generated on the fly
3	Authenticated messages

I have *code* which *runs* which covers item 2.

>	Remember, we are talking here about what to put in 1.1, not
>the whole future of HTTP; what can we get done now that moves us forward?

Remember you are suggesting taking the current 1.1 spec and changing it.

Nobody has provided any reason why this should either:-

1) Be any simpler to implement.

2) Allow aggrement to be reached in a shorter time frame.

If people don't want to have a large burden writing code for 1.1 then what is 
wrong with simply specifying a footer but defining no valid entity-footers for 
use in it except for extension-tag?

What is the reason for introducing a broken version of chunked in the 1.1 spec 
simply so that we can fix it in 1.2? That will involve a lot more code and it 
will mean that 1.1 compliant caches and gateways will not know how to interact 
with 1.2 messages.

Why can't people simply agree with *me* in order to move the spec forward?

I generally think that the best specs are those which anticipate the next 
revision. That is all I am saying we should do. 

I'm willing to hear a technical argument. Simply asking me to go along with
a *CHANGE* to the spec for the *WORSE* makes absolutely no *SENSE* to me.

Ted, please at the very least acknowledge that you are the one who is proposing 
a change.


Received on Friday, 15 March 1996 18:07:47 UTC