W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:58:23 -0700
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3A1E0833-F39B-4F21-B93F-8A7144935839@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 20/06/2013, at 8:35 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-04-23 05:47, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> * 2.1 "A byte range operation MAY specify..."   This is the only place "operation" is used in the document; it should either be defined, or replaced by another term.
> 
> Done in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2296>.
> 
>> * 3.1 "...and only if the result of their evaluation is leading toward a 200 (OK) response."  This is a bit informal...
> 
> Any suggestions?

"would result in"?


>> * 3.1 "If all of the preconditions are true, the server supports the Range header field for the target resource, and the specified range(s) are invalid or unsatisfiable, the server SHOULD send a 416 (Range Not Satisfiable) response."
>> 
>> Yet 4.4 says: "because servers are free to ignore Range, many implementations will simply respond with 200 (OK) if the requested ranges
>> are invalid or not satisfiable."
> 
> Actually, they'd return 200 even *if* the range is both valid and satisfiable, right? Should we clarify that?

Yes; I think just drop the "if the requested…" clause.

> 
>> I think sometimes responding with 200 is the right thing to do here sometimes, and so we shouldn't put a requirement against it. We could either remove the SHOULD, or qualify it with something that allows the server to make a judgement call.
> 
> 4.4 mentions as a possible reason to prevent clients from resubmitting invalid requests; is this what we should mention here?

Perhaps. Looking at this again, I'm less concerned than I was, but adding that text might be helpful.


>> * 4.3 first paragraph re-defines what validator strength is; this should just be a reference to p4.
> 
> But then it doesn't seem to say exactly the same thing.

Well, that's not good, is it?


>> * 4.3 last paragraph places a requirement on clients to "record" sets of ranges; how exactly do they meet this requirement? Terminology seems strange.
> 
> Maybe "process"?


WFM.

Thanks,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 15:58:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC