W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Content-Range on responses other than 206

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:38:49 -0400 (EDT)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1107252125180.27065@wnl.j3.bet>
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Anyone object to stating that Content-Range has no meaning on responses 
> that aren't 206's?
>
> Right now we don't say that, and it causes problems; see
>  http://gnats.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=45116

The issue here is the presense of a Content-Range header that identifies 
the whole representation, if the Content-Range header was identifying a 
sub-part it would be even more problematic, as the MUST-level requirement 
on C-R matching the payload bytes is in the definition of 206.

Proposal:
In Part5, section 5.2:

Old:
<<
The "Content-Range" header field is sent with a partial
representation to specify where in the full representation the
payload body is intended to be applied.
>>

New:
<<
The "Content-Range" header field is sent with a partial
representation to specify where in the full representation the
payload body is intended to be applied.

It MUST be ignored when present in responses with other response code than 
206 Partial Content [3.1].
>>


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

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 02:38:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:46 GMT