Re: [boost] [beast] Chunking example

Subject: Re: [boost] [beast] Chunking example
From: Bjorn Reese (breese_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-04 17:49:18

On 07/02/2017 08:11 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

> To my understanding, chunk-extensions are a rare niche use-case with
> meaning only to applications using a custom interpretation at each end
> of the connection. In fact 5 years ago the IETF almost deprecated
> them:
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/343>

That was scary reading, because HTTPbis seemed to be unaware that such
deprecation would break some of IETF's own standards, e.g. RFC 3507.

> On the other hand, I do not have significant expertise with HTTP
> servers; if a compelling use-case presents itself this is an aspect of
> the library which may be improved, in a backward-compatible way.

Chunk extensions were originally designed for per-chunk signatures.
I do not know how extensively this is used.

Another use-case that is used in practice is for in-band meta-data.
Consider an Internet radio station that sends a constant stream of
audio. When a new track is played this will be signaled by meta-data
telling the track title, artist name, etc. Some audio codec formats
embed this meta-data into the stream itself (e.g. MP3 ID3 tags), while
others do not. In the latter case, chunk extensions are used to carry
the meta-data.