- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:39:34 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
mån 2009-06-29 klockan 12:00 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham:
> After a quick look, my reading is that a Content-MD5 header on a
> partial response reflects the bytes in that message, rather than the
> whole (non-partial) response:
RFC2616 can apparently be read both ways depending on which parts of the
specs you read, which is a bit of a problem for Content-MD5.
My reading is that Content-MD5 is computed on the variant and not the
message-body. The reasoning behind this are:
* 206 is talked about to only contain ranges of the entity-body
(which btw conflicts with the general messaging format
definition of entity-body making 206 a special case).p4 4.
Combining Ranges
* How partial responses including their headers may be combined.
p4 4. Combining Ranges
* It being an Entity-Header. p3 5.8 Content-MD5
* That sending Entity-Headers is forbidden in an conditional 206
response (MUST/SHOULD NOT) and required to be included in
unconditional 206 responses if it would have been sent in an 200
response.
*
*
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 10:40:21 UTC