W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: Question on byte ranges

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 17:13:22 -0500
Message-Id: <345F9E02.30E4F99F@bell-labs.com>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4629
Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
> [...]
> (3) Also in section 14.36.1 Byte Ranges, before the paragraph that
> starts "Examples of byte-ranges-specifier values ...", insert this
> paragraph:
>         If a syntactically valid byte-range-set includes at least one
>         byte-range-spec whose first-byte-pos is less than the current
>         length of the entity-body, or at least one
>         suffix-byte-range-spec with a non-zero suffix-length, then the
>         byte-range-set is satisfiable.  Otherwise, the byte-range-set
>         is unsatisfiable.  If the byte-range-set is unsatisfiable, the
>         server SHOULD return a response with a status of 416 (Requested
>         range not satisfiable).  Otherwise, the server SHOULD return a
>         response with a status of 206 (Partial Content) containing the
>         satisfiable ranges of the entity-body.

That's much clearer.  But I think it's backward.  I think 416 should
mean the request (and therefore the client) is buggy.  And if none of
the ranges are satisfiable, return everything (pretend there's no Range
header).  I think it's a little strange to return an error if the Range
header was well-formed and ignore Range if it's ill-formed.

Dave Kristol
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 1997 14:18:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC