Subject: digest-headers-04: which digest is in the trailer?

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:02:46 -0500

Hello,

In the case where the digest is included in the trailer (Section 10.11
[1]), it may be beneficial for the client to know *which* digest the
server plans to include in the trailer.  This way, the client, too, can
calculate it in the streaming manner.  I wonder whether this use case
has been considered.

  - Dmitri.

1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-04#section-10.11

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 22:38:00 +0000

Hey Dmitri,

> calculate it in the streaming manner.  I wonder whether this use case

The use case probably has been considered but I'm not sure there is a
simple solution that can already solve it. If someone knows HTTP-fu and
wants to propose a valid way to do it with existing mechanisms, we could
incorporate it into the example. Failing that, I think a new header,
defined in a standalone document would be path forward.

FWIW draft-thomson-http-mice-03 seems like it was part way to a solution [1]

Cheers
Lucas

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-mice-03#section-4.1

---

From: Roberto Polli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 10:41:20 +0100

Thanks Dimitri, good catch.

I agree with Lucas: a new header can work like

Has-Digest: sha-256, id-sha-256

If there's consensus it could be reasonable to include it into this spec.

Wdyt?
R

Il lun 8 feb 2021, 23:41 Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]> ha
scritto:

> Hey Dmitri,
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:06 PM Dmitri Tikhonov <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>

---

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:46:21 -0500

Hi Lucas, Roberto,

I do not have a proposal, nor -- Lucas is right here -- do we at
LiteSpeed Tech intend to implement this (or at least not at the
moment).  My question was theoretical, as it looked to me that that
part was missing once I had read the draft.

  - Dmitri.

---

From: Roberto Polli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:00:27 +0100

Hi Dmitri,

> part was missing once I had read the draft.

Ok, I will then close the gh-issue, but I think it's an interesting point.

Kind regards,
R.

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:49:02 +0000

Yep, I'm not dismissive of the use case itself. It just has the potential
to make more work for the Digest spec, which I don't think is a good
investment given the other areas people are asking for right now.

We can word Digest carefully to allow some other document to define it
later if there is a demand.

Cheers
Lucas

---

From: Roberto Polli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:58:29 +0100

Hi Lucas

Il giorno lun 15 feb 2021 alle ore 15:49 Lucas Pardue <
[email-masked]> ha scritto:

> Yep, I'm not dismissive of the use case itself.
>

Sure :) I just thought that Dmitri's question was related to an
implementation issue and wasn't driven by sane curiosity.

As the context is more clear now, I agree we can close and resurrect the
issue in case more interest is raised.

Have a nice day,
and thanks for all the support!
R.