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

Re: proposal for issue #178

From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:13:37 +0200
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1275920017.3822.6.camel@henriknordstrom.gameop.net>
tis 2010-06-08 klockan 00:17 +1200 skrev Adrien de Croy:

> I don't see any point in having an integrity check for a message 
> containing only a partial range.  Surely you want to accumulate the 
> entire entity by piecing together all the parts, and then you use the 
> MD5 to check the total.

My view also, but others have read it differently in past, and the spec
is ambigious on which reading is right with a bit blurred definition of
206, response entity, full response entiry and partial response entity.

But as far as I know there has been only one actual server
implementation using the Content-MD5 on the partial response entity and
it's no longer sending Content-MD5 in 206 responses.  Unknown if there
is any client implementation using it, or even other server
implementations making use of Content-MD5 at all.

> On that note I don't see any point in range extensions either, other 
> than to make the job of intermediaries impossible.

Do you refer to the non-linear data discussion some many months ago
here?

Regards
Henrik
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 14:14:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:20 GMT