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
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk