W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:26:22 +1100
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D6B07DF8-1265-4B68-93AE-9DA647BE029B@mnot.net>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>

Now <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/102>.

Also, looking at the text for PUT:

> The recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-* (e.g.  
> Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement and  
> MUST return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases.

I wonder if 'recipient' is the right term to use; what does it mean  
for an intermediary to understand Content-*?


On 17/02/2008, at 3:13 AM, Brian Smith wrote:

>
> Brian Smith wrote:
>>> 3) Should we mention this in the PATCH spec; minimally requiring
>>> servers to either reject requests with Content-Range headers
>>
>> Servers are already required by RFC 2616 to reject any
>> request with a Content-Range header unless it knows what to
>> do with it.
>
> Actually, this is wishful thinking on my part. HTTPbis should have  
> that
> requirement that Content-* cannot be ignored for any method that  
> uses a
> request body (especially POST), but RFC 2616 only has the requirement
> for PUT. Can a new issue be created for that?
>
> - Brian
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 00:26:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT