Re: processing of ICAP Transfer-Ignore options

On 04/13/2012 12:15 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> fre 2012-04-13 klockan 11:44 -0300 skrev Marcus Kool:
>
>> There is no formal definition in the RFC of what a "file extension"
>> is. So the question is: is the file extension of
>> http://zzz.com/1409303.mp4?p1=2012-xxx
>> "mp4" ?
>
> The use of file extension is a major bug in the ICAP protocol imho.

Yes, but primarily because the "extension" is not clearly defined. This
is something we can address in ICAP Errata, I guess: Provide a
definition of what should be considered a "file extension", with a
disclaimer that not all agents will use the definition provided. It
would not solve all the problems but would be better than doing nothing.

>> If yes, I will file a bug report.
>
> I think so.

I agree that is is reasonable to ignore CGI query parameters when
looking for an elusive "file extension".

> But it's non-trivial to define what an file extension is in
> HTTP terms as you probably know.
>
> Last in URL-path?
> Embedded in query parameters?
> From Content-Disposition?
> Derived from Content-Type?

I wonder if there is some RFC that tried to solve this problem already.
We could consider their definition for the ICAP Errata then.

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Fri Apr 13 2012 - 19:21:38 MDT