Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 04:37:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Dean Gaudet <dgaudet@arctic.org>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: "Undying keepalives in 1.2b7" on Solaris 2.x (fwd) 
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.HPP.3.95.970312202407.29029B-100000@ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95dg2.970313043400.25152C-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

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. 

Dean

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 <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>      The Apache HTTP Server
> URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/   http://www.apache.org/
> 
>