Robert Collins wrote:
> We can send trailers quite happily. RFC 2616 requires clients to indicate their understanding of trailers with
> TE: trailers
> unless the fields going in the trailer are 100% optional metadata.
So we kan quite happily degrade the protocol to HTTP/1.1 without
trailers if needed.
> So we can fully support digest message body signing (that's all
> trailers are for).
Trailers can also be used for meta-data. One good example is
Last-Modified on objects generated from multiple sources, for eample
server-side include.
> What we cannot do is recieve and use trailers from origin or
> upstream servers - so we don't offer a TE: trailers in our requests.
Unless we agree on sending the data non-recoded to the client.
> What's more difficult is getting to the client side HttpReply
> to write those headers.
We basically needs to rewrite the request/reply chain anyway, so don't
worry to much about the current code. Instead concentrate on what is
required to be able to perform the transforms that might be needed.
Things which we need to decide on
* Where to perform TE decoding
* When to do it
* If requests should be upgraded to add things like cache-cache
compression
/Henrik
Received on Sat Jan 13 2001 - 12:53:49 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:13:17 MST