W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: trailers and pseudo-headers

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 07:12:41 -0400
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <E6C630F0-92C4-4B42-8133-7C2D7745440B@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Julian,

On Jul 2, 2014, at 3:43 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2014-07-02 09:35, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <53B3AD3A.8020307@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:
>> 
>>> The reason I ask is that people might start putting ":status" into a
>>> trailer and expect that to have an effect (it would be nice to have that
>>> feature, but it wouldn't map to 1.1...).
>> 
>> It would also be pretty pointless:  It would just shift the buffering
>> responsibility from the server to the client.
> 
> What I meant is: an *additional* :status (such as in first claiming everything is ok -- 200, then start streaming and failing, and then send a 500 in the trailers).

As you've noted, you can't do that in HTTP/1.1, and in fact this would be a case where I would emit 100 (continue) to the client to let them know they can continue sending data, then follow up with a final status code (200, 500, whatever) once I'd processed the message body and any trailers in the request.

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair



Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 11:13:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:08 UTC