Re: Chunking and trailers (IMPORTANT question for implementers)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Larry Masinter: "(revised) Agenda, HTTP-WG"
• Previous message: Patrick McManus: "Re: Chunking and trailers (IMPORTANT question for implementers)"
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Gettys: "Chunking and trailers (IMPORTANT question for implementers)"

Jim Gettys wrote:
> [...]
> We need data from implementers to make a good recommendation of how to
> proceed.  This question is needed to get data on whether the problem actually
> occurs in practice in any deployed code, which will affect what the right
> fix might be (if the situation never exists in any deployed code, then
> the simplest, cleanest fix involves outlawing the protocol condition that
> can generate the problem in the first place).
> [...]
> Are there any deployed HTTP servers or proxies that actually
> send Authentication-Info or Content-MD5 in the trailer of
> a chunked encoding when the request does not include "chunked"
> in a TE request-header field?

Sorry for the delay --- I've been away a few days.

I don't know whether my server could be considered "deployed", but
here's what it does.  For *any* digest response to qop=auth-int, the
server *always* sends a trailer (and chunked encoding) that contains
Authentication-Info.  The server ignores the TE header.  (You may recall
I argued (issue h2, TE-IDENTITY) that "chunked" should always be
allowed.  This support of Digest auth-int is why.)

Dave Kristol

• Next message: Larry Masinter: "(revised) Agenda, HTTP-WG"
• Previous message: Patrick McManus: "Re: Chunking and trailers (IMPORTANT question for implementers)"
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Gettys: "Chunking and trailers (IMPORTANT question for implementers)"