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 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:01 UTC