- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:34:05 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > >Content-MD5 is not useful for dynamically produced entities. > >As a trailer it might be possible, but how compatible is that? > > Well, unless I'm missing something, it will be hard to send from a > servlet (hey, Servlet EG, are you listening...?). Implementation detail. If you want this kind of message integrity, fix the implementation :-) > >I'm thinking that the solution to these is allowing Content-Length in > >a chunked trailer, and Content-MD5 too. > > Well, what would they contain in case of a truncated response? Surely > not the length/digest of the actual response, because that wouldn't help > the client finding out about the truncation... Truncated responses don't have trailers. Trailers are at the _end_! > Maybe something like "final-status" as a new response header would make > sense. That way, a server could send an initial 2xx, start sending > content, and in case of internal errors could at least signal that > something went fatally wrong... Not a bad idea. A final-status ought to be able to include an error entity too. Not sure how to fit that into the present syntax. -- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 17:34:45 UTC