RE: short names for headers
Paul Leach (paulle@microsoft.com)
Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:56:37 -0700
I'm not sure. I have been thinking about it some, and have the following
preliminary observations:
1. It could only be used if you knew you were talking to a 1.2
application.
2. A 1.2 proxy talking to a 1.1 or earlier application would have to
convert.
3. Signatures or hashes would have to be computed on the canonical, full
name, form.
I haven't seen any showstoppers yet to using it in 1.2.
>----------
>From: Marc Salomon[SMTP:marc@ckm.ucsf.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 1996 11:35 AM
>To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Subject: short names for headers
>
>from minutes, HTTP Working Group, IETF June 96, Montreal
>|Aug 1: (Leach) draft on sticky headers, short names for headers, and
>
>Can short names for headers (Good Idea) be compatible with existing practice
>in
>HTTP/1.x or must it wait until 2.x? Does allowing aliases for the names of
>the
>header fields alter the general message parsing algorithm or message
>semantics
>as specified in 3.1 of HTTP/1.1?
>
>-marc
>
>--
>
>