Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Defining Trailer header field separately from chunked trailers #117

Closed
royfielding opened this issue Jul 2, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Defining Trailer header field separately from chunked trailers #117

royfielding opened this issue Jul 2, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@royfielding
Copy link
Member

While rearranging the sections, we decided to make the header field definition of Trailer be separate from the syntactic definition of chunked trailer parts. However, this exposed a lack of such definition text (aside from the ABNF) in the past RFCs.

The following text (currently in crefs) has been added to the new section on "Trailer" in Semantics around the existing ABNF for the field:

The "Trailer" header field in a message indicates fields that the sender anticipates sending after the message header block (i.e., during or after the payload is sent). This is typically used to supply metadata that might be dynamically generated while the data is sent, such as a message integrity check, digital signature, or post-processing status.

How, where, and when trailer fields might be sent depends on both the protocol in use (HTTP version and/or transfer coding) and the semantics of each named header field. Many header fields cannot be processed outside the header section because their evaluation is necessary for message routing, authentication, or configuration prior to receiving the representation data.

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Jul 2, 2018

I like this. See related proposal in #16.

@reschke
Copy link
Contributor

reschke commented Jul 9, 2018

Maybe also mention timing information (because that seems to be the first use case in browsers being implemented)?

@royfielding
Copy link
Member Author

Completed along with the changes for #219

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants