RE: Outstanding Issues - LONG please red to end

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 7:09 PM
> > To: 'ian.c.jones@bt.com'; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: RE: Outstanding Issues - LONG please red to end
> > 
> > 
> > ###
> > Issue 2
> > Title - Content-Length
> > 
> > Detail - 
> > 7.2.2 - Counting OCTECTS: is first correct or should it be last? Where
> > should count actually start?
> > Example - Proposal: Content-Length in payload envelop: should come after
> > Content-ID. Reason: suspected error (vs. MIME spec).
> > None - Remove requirement for mandatory Content-Length header
> > 
> > Proposed solution - Remove Content-Length and only show in HTTP binding
> > 
> > <Daveb>Agreed</Daveb>

Why not leave the content-length in the individual parts and in the
multipart header, and use an encoding scheme to protect the message
from transport mangling?

e.g.

POST /ebxml HTTP/1.0
Content-Type: application/eb+xml
Transfer-Encoding: Base64
Content-Length: n

hjhjhdiuhwdfiuhuhuHZUHUHJHKJjhjhjHjhkhkjhkjhkjhkjhkhkhkhkjhk=
hjhkjhjkahjkahdaksjdhaksjdhaskdjhaskdhaksdhkashdkashdkashdkh=
kjaSDKASJDHKAJHKJHJKHKASJHDKajshdkjhASKDHKSDFSJHDKFGDFKJHDH==


Content-Length is a valuable field to have when parsing out the
message.  I would hate to see that go away, and have to rely on 
matching the boundary.

-Matt