W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: proposal for issue #178

From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:24:26 +0200 (CEST)
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006071521340.29826@tvnag.unkk.fr>
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Adrien de Croy wrote:

>> In the end, you might sit there with a huge file with a bad checksum 
>> without being able to pinpoint the single small chunk that had the error. 
>> So now you need to redownload the whole thing again, instead of just 
>> regetting the small chunk that contained the error.
> I didn't think that was really supported by HTTP, since you can't know 
> without some meta information that parts from different servers belong to 
> the same entity.

Well, that meta information can still exist. See RFC5854 for inspiration!

> in which case it's an extension, in which case may as well add a new header 
> to explicitly cover the part entity.  E.g. Content-Part-MD5 or something. 
> And leave Content-MD5 as it is (could use both).

Yes it can, I was not really advocating for any particular header. I was 
merely suggesting that there are use-cases where getting a checksum on a range 
can be useful.


  / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 13:24:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:53 UTC