W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Resend: Re: IPP> Chunked POST: SUMMARY

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:21:42 +0000
Message-Id: <36A5E676.7BAFBE8E@agranat.com>
To: ipp@pwg.org
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/303
kugler@us.ibm.com wrote:

> The IPP WG would really like clarification on this point:  Is the intent of
> the HTTP/1.1 spec to say that an HTTP/1.1 server MAY reject any request
> without a defined Content-Length?  This would imply that a conformant
> HTTP/1.1 server MAY reject any request with the "chunked" transfer-coding.

I don't know who can provide any sort of authoritative response - don't
take mine as being 'from the HTTP WG'; I'm just another HTTP server

First, I think that the note Harry Lewis sent titled "IPP> Chunking
Explanation" [1] sums it up pretty well.  An HTTP server certainly has the
option of using the "Length Required" code for whatever reason it wants
to.  My own judgement would be that a printer design that did not allow for
very large inputs of indeterminate length would be a poor one, and as a
result I would not choose an HTTP layer implementation that restricted me
to CGI.  

[1] <872566FF.0013A85F.00@d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com>
    (Can't seem to find a web-accessible ipp list archive...)

Scott Lawrence           Director of R & D        <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.  Embedded Web Technology   http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 1999 06:28:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:06 UTC