Resend: Re: IPP> Chunked POST: SUMMARY

Resend: Re: IPP> Chunked POST: SUMMARY

Resend: Re: IPP> Chunked POST: SUMMARY

Scott Lawrence lawrence at agranat.com
Wed Jan 20 09:21:42 EST 1999


kugler at us.ibm.com wrote:

> The IPP WG would really like clarification on this point:  Is the intent of
> the HTTP/1.1 spec to say that an HTTP/1.1 server MAY reject any request
> without a defined Content-Length?  This would imply that a conformant
> HTTP/1.1 server MAY reject any request with the "chunked" transfer-coding.

I don't know who can provide any sort of authoritative response - don't
take mine as being 'from the HTTP WG'; I'm just another HTTP server
vendor.  

First, I think that the note Harry Lewis sent titled "IPP> Chunking
Explanation" [1] sums it up pretty well.  An HTTP server certainly has the
option of using the "Length Required" code for whatever reason it wants
to.  My own judgement would be that a printer design that did not allow for
very large inputs of indeterminate length would be a poor one, and as a
result I would not choose an HTTP layer implementation that restricted me
to CGI.  

[1] <872566FF.0013A85F.00 at d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com>
    (Can't seem to find a web-accessible ipp list archive...)

-- 
Scott Lawrence           Director of R & D        <lawrence at agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.  Embedded Web Technology   http://www.agranat.com/



More information about the Ipp mailing list