httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: [PATCH]: "Undying keepalives in 1.2b7" on Solaris 2.x (fwd)
Date Thu, 13 Mar 1997 12:37:07 GMT
Yup you got it, english.  I was actually asking if in order to be a
transfer-encoding it is required to provide safe transport... I didn't see
a MUST or SHOULD on that in rfc2068. 

Anyhow I was talking about the response 'cause Roy was playing in
set_keepalive.  But maybe we need to check it on the request too... too
tired right now to look. 


On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Alexei Kosut wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > Only the existence of a Transfer-Encoding header is checked for, not its
> > content... this problem exists without the patch too.  So it's assuming
> > that all Transfer-Encodings properly delimit the length of the response in
> > some way. 
> Oh, yeah, I think you're right. It's that pesky English language
> again: When you said "a Transfer-Coding is *required* to provide safe
> transport", I thought (and Roy too, probably) you were saying that in
> order to have safe transport, one requires a transfer-coding. What you
> were actually saying is that in order to be a transfer-coding, it
> is required to provide safe transport.
> I think you're right... we probably should check for "chunked" as
> well if Transfer-Enoding is present.
> I presume you're talking about the request, not the response, right,
> though?
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Alexei Kosut <>      The Apache HTTP Server
> URL:

View raw message