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

Re: proposal for issue #178

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:04:05 -0400 (EDT)
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1007230547570.1239@wnl.j3.bet>
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, 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.

Roy made some clarification in part3 today (see [874]), so basically we 
have implementations like Apache violating the spec (it sends the C-MD5 of 
the whole representation), should we warn that as of today, server 
implementations are at best inconsistent when they send C-MD5 on 206, or 
ask client that they SHOULD ignore C-MD5 on 206?

[874] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/874

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 10:04:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:23 GMT