W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Live Byte Ranges

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 19:52:52 +0000
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <35074.1480362772@critter.freebsd.dk>
--------
In message <CAOdDvNrrLfh0yV4UdBN_HpHNfD024Kufibe3D4ZB1N-SqYVt4g@mail.gmail.com>
, Patrick McManus writes:

>To summarize briefly - this addresses the problem of addressing byte ranges
>of dynamic (growing) content. A number of solutions have seen false starts
>in this space previously, but this one has a shot at being compatible with
>existing infrastructure.

Varnish will almost certainly implement whatever comes out of this.

Notes from our mumblings in the project:

The "Very Large Value" solution it is brittle in more ways than is
desirable, but try as we may, we don't see any simpler/better ways
of doing it without negotiation/hints.

We suggest to either put a "Quite Large" lower limit on "Very Large
Value", or better yet:  Make it a magic value large enough to not
be a problem relative to actual Range requests.  If we keep with
the 9's motif from the draft, we suggest 999999999999999999 which
doesn't needlessly provoke 64-bit sign issues.

Typo on page 3: "accessable"


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 28 November 2016 19:53:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 28 November 2016 19:53:30 UTC