Re: Last-Modified in chunked footer

> I agree with Jeff in that it is generally better to give people as
> much rope as possible. Overly restricting legitimate applications is
> far more of a hazard than making it possible for implementers to hang
> themselves; after all, it's a lot easier for implementers to learn what
> works (and what doesn't) than it is for us to go back and change the
> definition of a header field.

Removing the restriction on the sender unfortunately adds more
complexity to the recipient, if the recipient must be able to
process mandatory header-fields in the trailer. And implementors
of recipients and senders seem to be in different groups, even
if they work for the same company, so we can't rely on implementor
ingenuity to get this one 'right'.
I was thinking of something like:
"Any header-field which the sender MUST send in a request should be
in the header and not in the trailer."

although that is not quite right.

(I will note, parenthetically, that the ability to say the previous
sentence is critically dependent on separating "header-field" from
"header".)

Larry

-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter