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

Re: draft-kfall-httpbis-server-ranges [was: Preliminary agenda for Atlanta]

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:55:16 +0000
To: "Fall, Kevin" <kfall@qti.qualcomm.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em5c25be47-cbb4-4234-8881-2839a127c1d0@bombed>

Hi

------ Original Message ------
From: "Fall, Kevin" <kfall@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 26/10/2012 2:32:44 a.m.
Subject: Re: draft-kfall-httpbis-server-ranges [was: Preliminary agenda 
for Atlanta]
>That is one case, but perhaps more interesting/controversial is this one:
>
> Range: bytes=100-
>
> Content-Range: bytes 200-300/1000.
>

I'm struggling to see the point of this.

What real world case would something like this solve?  Presumably the 
client would need to request 100-200 again?  If not, then why even deal 
in bytes and part ranges like this at all?

Regards

Adrien


>
>
>A subsequent request might likely then be:
>
> Range: 100-200, 300-1000
>
>for which the responses might be
>
> Content-Range: 100-200, 300-1000
>
>or even something like
>
> Range: 100-1000
>
>(although this later case isn't as desirable due the redundancy).
>
>It would still be straightforward to implement the current rule of not
>returning multiple ranges unless multiple ranges were given in the request.
>Although I don't know if the intent is to continue with this guidance
>given a new HTTP version. [?]
>
>A related issue is which response code to use for such responses.
>Although 206 seems most logical given the current set of defined codes (it
>is, after all, 'Partial Content'), perhaps it might be more clear if a
>different code were used.  I'm neutral on that issue for the moment; the
>draft suggests 206.
>
>thx
>- K
>
>On 10/24/12 8:32 PM PDT, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Kevin,
>>
>>On 23/10/2012, at 3:11 PM, "Fall, Kevin" <kfall@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Would like a chance to briefly bring up the range / partial delivery
>>>issue
>>>I mentioned on the list.
>>>[and what's behind
>>>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kfall-httpbis-server-ranges-00.txt]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>We can spend a bit of time on it in the "related work" item of the
>>session on Monday, yes.
>>
>>To make the use case a bit more concrete, and make sure I understand it,
>>one example AIUI would be a request for
>>
>> Range: bytes=100-
>>
>>to which you return, say:
>>
>> Content-Range: bytes 100-200/1000
>> ETag: "1234"
>>
>>and then to a subseqent, identical request
>>
>> Content-Range: bytes 100-400/1000
>> ETag: "1234"
>>
>>Correct?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>
>>--
>>Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 22:55:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 October 2012 22:55:45 GMT