On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 1:12 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote: > This draft looks good to me. > > One issue that prevented the adoption of this header and related ones > (e.g. Content-MD5) was that HTTP/1.1 trailers had a lot of interoperability > problems. This made it expensive for large files, or impossible to use for > message bodies that couldn't be pre-calculated. > That last part is slightly wrong. I should have said it was impossible to use for message bodies that couldn't be pre-calculated that were also streamed. Roughly, these headers required a lot of buffering, and this trade-off doesn't seem to be present anymore. thanks, Rob
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 20:26:01 UTC