- From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:46:21 -0500
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Lucas, Roberto, I do not have a proposal, nor -- Lucas is right here -- do we at LiteSpeed Tech intend to implement this (or at least not at the moment). My question was theoretical, as it looked to me that that part was missing once I had read the draft. - Dmitri. On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 10:41:20AM +0100, Roberto Polli wrote: > Thanks Dimitri, good catch. > > I agree with Lucas: a new header can work like > > Has-Digest: sha-256, id-sha-256 > > If there's consensus it could be reasonable to include it into this spec. > > Wdyt? > R > > Il lun 8 feb 2021, 23:41 Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > > > Hey Dmitri, > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:06 PM Dmitri Tikhonov < > > dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> In the case where the digest is included in the trailer (Section 10.11 > >> [1]), it may be beneficial for the client to know *which* digest the > >> server plans to include in the trailer. This way, the client, too, can > >> calculate it in the streaming manner. I wonder whether this use case > >> has been considered. > >> > > > > The use case probably has been considered but I'm not sure there is a > > simple solution that can already solve it. If someone knows HTTP-fu and > > wants to propose a valid way to do it with existing mechanisms, we could > > incorporate it into the example. Failing that, I think a new header, > > defined in a standalone document would be path forward. > > > > FWIW draft-thomson-http-mice-03 seems like it was part way to a solution > > [1] > > > > Cheers > > Lucas > > > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-mice-03#section-4.1 > > > >
Received on Monday, 15 February 2021 13:46:39 UTC