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


From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:53:36 +0000
To: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <emb5f097c8-6b75-4e69-ad9b-0cbd43dd6855@bodybag>
Just been working on range support.  P5 is great improvement over 2616 
btw, answers a lot of questions.

some nits and queries...

1. 3.1 Range:

Para 4 (p7)

A proxy MAY either discard a Range header field that contains a range 
unit it does not understand or pass it to the next inbound server when 
forwarding the request.

What does "next inbound server" mean?  Range is a request header, 
therefore these should only be going in 1 direction, and that's from 
client to server.  I'd propose

"A proxy MAY discard a Range header field that contains a range unit it 
does not understand".

Para 5 (p7)

A server that supports range requests ought to ignore or reject a Range 
header field that consists of more than two overlapping ranges"

does "ought to" mean SHOULD?  How is the rejection envisaged, a 416?

2. If-Range

p5 (v22) doesn't specify what to do if there is an invalid date 
specified (e.g. not a well formed date / fails parsing).  I would 
propose this is a non-match and therefore range processing is 
suppressed.  Shouldn't there be some warning or something if Range 
processing is suppressed for various reasons?  e.g.:

use of weak etag (prohibited)
empty If-Range (ignore?)
bad date



Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 02:54:07 UTC

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