review of byte range draft: please reply

I'm sorry to have sent out my previous message too quickly.
Please ignore it, and instead reply to the following request:

> I do have interest in getting to consensus about byteranges, and
> additions to the protocol to address cache control with byteranges,
> and other directives in context of that; but I do not want the things
> already defined by the BR spec to change (Accept-ranges:, Range:,
> Content-range:, Content-type:, 206 Partial Content).

If you have any comments about the byte range draft with regard to
those issues, would you please send them asap to the members of the
byte range group?