W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Content-MD5 and partial responses

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:39:34 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Message-Id: <1248345574.32278.115.camel@localhost.localdomain>
mån 2009-06-29 klockan 12:00 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham: 
> After a quick look, my reading is that a Content-MD5 header on a  
> partial response reflects the bytes in that message, rather than the  
> whole (non-partial) response:

RFC2616 can apparently be read both ways depending on which parts of the
specs you read, which is a bit of a problem for Content-MD5.

My reading is that Content-MD5 is computed on the variant and not the
message-body. The reasoning behind this are:

      * 206 is talked about to only contain ranges of the entity-body
        (which btw conflicts with the general messaging format
        definition of entity-body making 206 a special case).p4 4.
        Combining Ranges
      * How partial responses including their headers may be combined.
        p4 4. Combining Ranges
      * It being an Entity-Header. p3 5.8 Content-MD5
      * That sending Entity-Headers is forbidden in an conditional 206
        response (MUST/SHOULD NOT) and required to be included in
        unconditional 206 responses if it would have been sent in an 200
        response.
      * 
      * 
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 10:40:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT