- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:22:25 -0800
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>we should add: > > Note: a proxy or cache need not actually delete a > hop-by-hop header in a case where its external > behavior would be equivalent to deleting the header > and then adding it again. For example, a proxy > receiving a response with a non-identity > transfer-coding need not remove that coding, and the > corresponding Transfer-Encoding header field, unless > the response is being sent to a client that has not > sent an appropriate Accept-Transfer header. Yep. >The other problem that we may need to clarify is that if >a transfer-coding (e.g., "compress") is used with a Range response >containing multiple ranges, then should the transfer-coding apply >to the entire "multipart/byteranges" body, or just to the >parts individually? The entire body, since Transfer-Encoding is not a MIME header field. The HTTP/1.1 message data model was designed to be easy to translate into a future version of HTTP that had better layering (i.e., actual instead of theoretical layers) between transfer and payload. That gets harder if we start pushing HTTP elements inside body parts. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 1997 16:40:32 UTC