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

Re: proposal for issue #178

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:54:25 +1200
Message-ID: <4C0D5C81.4040901@qbik.com>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org


On 8/06/2010 2:13 a.m., Henrik Nordström wrote:
> 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?
>    

yes.  There was some discussion a few months back about it - even an I-D?

Regards

Adrien

> Regards
> Henrik
>
>    

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 20:55:44 GMT

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