- From: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 03:55:49 -0800
- To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>, John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, mutex@clock.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: David W. Morris [SMTP:dwm@xpasc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 8:23 PM > To: John Franks > Cc: Roy T. Fielding; http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com; > http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com; > http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com > Subject: Re: What is Content-Length? > > On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, John Franks wrote: > > Exactly HOW would a server know transfer-length before sending > data? I can define a reasonable use of content-length in the > trailer of a chunk-encoded transfer ... since content length is > the entity length, it could serve as a double check of the > receipt of the chunk-encoded entity. But clearly, transfer > length couldn't appear in the trailer as the length wouldn't > be known until after the trailer was complete. It makes no > sense to me for a server which knows the length of the transfer > encoded entity to ever use transfer encoding. > > Sounds like protocol cruft to me. What am I missing? > [Joshua Cohen] I didnt realize that we intended all future TEs to be used for unknown length entities. It seems logical that someone might use TE for encryption, which could still have a known length at transmission time. > Dave Morris
Received on Sunday, 14 December 1997 03:58:27 UTC