W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

Re: Slight editorial discrepancy in HTTP/1.1 Rev 3

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 98 12:57:26 MDT
Message-Id: <9804301957.AA15774@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Cc: john_chamberlain@iris.com, jg@pa.dec.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/94
John Chamberlain <jchamberlain@iris.com> writes:

    While reviewing Rev 3 in conjunction with some testing I found this slight
    In Section 10.4.17 (416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable) it is stated:
    "When this status code is returned for a byte-range request, the response
    MUST include a Content-Range entity-header field specifying the current
    length of the selected resource (see section 14.16)."
    In section 14.16 (Content-Range) it is stated:
    "A server sending a response with status code 416 (Requested range not
    satisfiable) SHOULD include a Content-Range field with a
    byte-range-resp-spec of "*""
    The discrepancy is between the directives MUST and SHOULD.

Hmm.  It looks like this is my doing; see
which proposed both of these paragraphs, later amended by

I'm not sure why everyone failed to catch this discrepancy last year.

I think the MUST in 10.4.17 probably ought to be changed to be a
SHOULD.  MUST is probably too strong for this situation, since the
underlying goal is to avoid wasting a round-trip for the client
to discover the actual length.  I.e., it's not mandatory for
correct interoperability.

Received on Thursday, 30 April 1998 13:12:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC