- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:04:51 +1300
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- CC: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 27/01/2012 1:49 a.m., Willy Tarreau wrote: > Provided that we can advertise a chunk. This is the point I'm trying to > make. Until the current chunk is not complete, you cannot advertise a > new one. In our case, we always send complete chunks. At the point where we decide to send a chunk, we have some data, and we know its length, and we have decided to send it. So the signal it would always fall on the start of a new chunk, e.g. we scan, determine the content to be malware, and so the next chunk sent would be 0 and signal an abort due to malware. A close would then be less ambiguous, since nothing explicit was communicated, the client could then more reliably assume it was a transient network error. I can't really think of a requirement to abort part way through a chunk. Not in this scenario anyway. If the intermediary is re-chunking then it can easily get around this issue. Adrien > Regards, > Willy > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 13:05:26 UTC