- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:23:24 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:44:32AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2013-09-15 08:21, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 04:01:01PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >>Document that they may not be persisted beyond a, because chunking (and > >>therefore extensions) don't have any semantic in the message itself. > >>Furthermore, that they're not available in most implementations. > > > >Probably it would be easier to remind that just like chunks themselves, > >they're connection-specific, since any intermediary is allowed to > >rechunk differently. It is also obvious that a compressing gateway > >will rechunk for example. > > Can you suggest concrete text? Just doing a quick attempt : @p1-23#4.1 - Chunk extensions within the chunked transfer coding are deprecated. - Senders SHOULD NOT send chunk-ext. Definition of new chunk - extensions is discouraged. + The current version of the HTTP specification defines no specific + use for the chunk extensions. When use of chunk extensions is + considered to transport anything (for example, chunks signatures), + care must be taken about the nature of the information present in + these extensions which by definition are hop-by-hop and not + end-to-end, as nothing prevents an intermediary from forwarding a + message with different size chunks, or even dropping or replacing + these extensions as well. Willy
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2013 09:23:50 UTC