W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: question/comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-20.txt

From: Fall, Kevin <kfall@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:58:20 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BB72E60F7A18154A9B1352D1DF6FEE571E25179D@NASANEXD01E.na.qualcomm.com>
[KF] comments inline...

On 9/18/12 10:51 AM PDT, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

>On 2012-09-18 19:05, Fall, Kevin wrote:
>> ...
>> I think you do understand the use case.  However, while I believe I
>> understand the original intent of Range, it seems to me it is a
>>reasonable
>> if not elegant way to do "server driven" partial content.  Indeed, would
>> you agree that the method I suggested above (client suggests multiple
>> ranges including (0-), (0-) would be "legal" to indicate to the server
>> that it is permitted to repond with multiple ranges of sizes chosen by
>>the
>> server?
>>...
>
>The authors aren't relevant here; the Working Group is.

[KF] ok.

>
>That being said, our current charter (for HTTP/1.1) essentially forbids
>to do anything that could break existing clients, and also doesn't
>really allow us to invent anything new.

[KF] fair enough.

>
>(The situation for HTTP/2.0 is slightly different)

[KF]  Right.  So, is the group comfortable with considering this issue in
the context of HTTP/2.0 discussions?

thx
- Kevin


>
>Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 16:59:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 16:59:15 GMT