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

Issue 133, was: multipart/byteranges minimum number of parts

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:44:03 +0200
Message-ID: <48E39AC3.6000203@gmx.de>
To: "A. Rothman" <amichai2@amichais.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

A. Rothman wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> The spec contradicts itself regarding the minimum number of parts in a 
> multipart/byteranges response: On the one hand, "A response to a request 
> for multiple ranges, whose result is a single range, MAY be sent as a 
> multipart/byteranges media type with one part", while on the other hand, 
> "The multipart/byteranges media type includes two or more parts". If a 
> multipart/byteranges media type indeed must include two or more parts, 
> the first statement makes for an illegal response. And if a one-part 
> response is valid, then the second statement is incorrect.
> 
> Since the spec also mandates that a client requesting a single range 
> must never receive a multipart/byteranges response, it seems like the 
> intention was to make it possible for a client to support partial 
> retrieval without having to implement multipart support at all, in which 
> case it would have been more straightforward if the spec simply required 
> all single-range responses to use Content-Range and not 
> multipart/byteranges. For backwards compatibility,  it can 
> encourage/require multipart/byteranges recipients to properly handle 
> single-part messages as well, which is very likely the case in existing 
> implementations.
> 
> In any case, this contradiction should be fixed and the use cases clarified.
> ...

Hi Amichai,

I believe your analysis is correct, and I have opened issue 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/133> accordingly.

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 15:44:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:56 GMT