- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 23:30:26 +0000
- To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "Greg Wilkins" <gregw@webtide.com>
- Cc: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, "Ryan Sleevi" <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>, "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
------ Original Message ------ From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> >-------- >Greg Wilkins writes: >> --0000000000001c746805ba8386a3 > >> On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 11:53, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >> >> > Here's a strawman: >> > A new 3xx response code which means: "Everything is in the >> > trailers." >> > The allowed header fields: >> > Transfer-Encoding: chunked >> > Content-Length >> > Connection >> > >> >> Why everything in the trailers? Isn't it sufficient to say that >> authoritative fields are in trailers and that any in the header should be >> considered just hints. > >Because I want to keep it simple. > >> Fields like Date, Retry-After, Age, Expires, Last-Modified might well >> benefit from being set in the header and then updated in a trailer if the >> transmission took a long time. A strong ETAg might be able to be generated >> on the fly an added to the trailer > >That is what we have today, and nobody wants to touch that with a ten feet pole. > >> The sender XOR scrambles the body with a N*64bit randomly chosen >> > nonce. >> > The nonce is disclosed in a "Trailer-Nonce" field (as RFC8941 Byte >> > Sequence). >> > >> >> I'm not seeing the benefit of this [...] > >The benefit is that the sender can trust that the content will not be >interpreted until it has been "released", and that we can trust buggy >proxies to make such a hash of it (pun intended) that it will be >found and fixed. at the cost of the ability to block on any metadata without having to spool the entire resource (and delay it). this is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. Some fields belong only in the headers and should never be seen in trailers. I would rather see clarity around this. E.g. any Content- field belongs in the header only. Isn't there a warning field that can be used for more general cases? Adrien > > >-- >Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 >phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 >FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe >Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. >
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2021 23:30:44 UTC