W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2019

Re: [Anima] Content-Transfer-Encoding and HTTP 1.x in ANIMA BRSKI

From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:14:17 -0400
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, anima@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, draft-ietf-pkix-est@ietf.org, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Message-ID: <4930.1560377657@localhost>

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> There is no Content-Transfer-Encoding header field in HTTP. It is simply
    >> not needed.

    > Just as a matter of curiosity, what happened in HTTP1.1 to the fragment in
    > RFC2616 that says (under Content-MD5):

    > "The entity-body for composite
    > types MAY contain many body-parts, each with its own MIME and HTTP
    > headers (including Content-MD5, Content-Transfer-Encoding, and
    > Content-Encoding headers)."

yes, I was going to bring this up next :-)

    > This seems to be a source of confusion, e.g.
    > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5169434/content-transfer-encoding-in-file-uploading-request
    > . RFC7030 uses a content type of application/pkcs7-mime. So is it
    > allowed to specify a MIME header?

I also found that while googling.

I went through the effort of doing a multipart *reply* in HTTP for
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher, and I really found it hard to determine
what the MIME rules for *HTTP* were...

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2019 22:14:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:34 UTC