- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 96 10:01:17 EDT
- To: mogul@pa.dec.com
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com> wrote: > [DMK wrote:] > > In the second paragraph, the phrase "... if the transport connection > was terminated in any unusual way" is too vague to be meaningful. I'm > unsure what it should say. (Jeff?) I think it should at least give > categories of events that qualify as "unusual". > > How about > ... if there is any uncertainty as to whether a terminated > transport connection was terminated without any error. I suppose that's okay (and acceptably vague :-). > [...] > On the other hand, the underlying rule is in conflict with our desire > to allow a cache to use and support range-retrieval operations to patch > up after failed transfers. (I think I may have already commented on > this issue to Jim Gettys, but I don't think he's had a chance to > address it in the spec.) For example, if the transfer of a 100KB > entity fails after 99KB, it would be nice to be able to keep those 99KB > in the cache, marked in some way as "partial content", and then do a > 1KB range retrieval to finish the entity. > > So probably the "MUST NOT store the response" in the previous > sentence should become "MUST NOT store the response unless > it is marked as a partial-content response." Note, however, that > the Content-Range header requires an indication of the total > length of the object, so it's not always possible to make use of > such a fragmentary response. Sounds like appropriate adjustments to me. Dave Kristol
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 1996 07:06:09 UTC