- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:45:33 -0600 (CST)
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
>
> Here's a sketch of a specific proposal:
>
This looks good
> (1) The definition in 7.2.2:
> The length of an entity-body is the length of the message-body after
> any transfer codings have been removed.
> should be retained. At first I thought "maybe we should rename
> this the 'entity-length'", but we already use that non-terminal (in
> Content-Range) to mean something different. Which maybe should be
> changed to use "instance-length", since the "entity-length" used
> with a Content-Range has nothing to do with the length of the
> entity-body. But I digress.
It would be good to do this renaming or at least name the length of
the entity-body something. This is the number which Digest
authentication needs to use. The current D-A spec uses
"Content-Length" and "content length" with the intended meaning of
length of the entity-body (the ambiguity of this is how we got into
this discussion). Anyway, *some term* should be defined meaning
length of the entity-body and that term should replace "content
length" and "Content-Length" in the DA spec.
Interestingly, the D-A spec contains the sentence.
"The HTTP/1.1 spec requires that content length is well defined
in all messages, whether or not there is a Content-Length header."
Sounds like wishful thinking at this point, but I guess this sentence
should be removed if content length is replaced by entity-length.
John Franks
john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Thursday, 11 December 1997 18:50:29 UTC