- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:35:38 -0800
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, 'John Franks' <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> ---------- > From: John Franks[SMTP:john@math.nwu.edu] > Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 3:41 PM > <snip> > > When Paul writes: > > Under these rules, Content-Length is still logically end-to-end -- > > the header may not physically be present, but its value if it is > > ever present is well-defined end-to-end and the same end-to-end. > > I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about a header being "end-to-end" > > if it isn't actually transmitted on some hops. > > What I would most like to see is the assertion that if a Content-length > header is present its value is the length of the entity-body. > That cat may be out of the bag, if anyone has implemented any TEs other than chunked or identity. They will almost for sure have used Content-length as the length of the message-body. > It may not be too important that it be officially end-to-end. > I don't care either. I only care that "length of entity-body" be well-defined and determinable at each hop. Paul
Received on Saturday, 13 December 1997 12:08:17 UTC