- From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:24:26 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Adrien de Croy wrote: >> In the end, you might sit there with a huge file with a bad checksum >> without being able to pinpoint the single small chunk that had the error. >> So now you need to redownload the whole thing again, instead of just >> regetting the small chunk that contained the error. > > I didn't think that was really supported by HTTP, since you can't know > without some meta information that parts from different servers belong to > the same entity. Well, that meta information can still exist. See RFC5854 for inspiration! > in which case it's an extension, in which case may as well add a new header > to explicitly cover the part entity. E.g. Content-Part-MD5 or something. > And leave Content-MD5 as it is (could use both). Yes it can, I was not really advocating for any particular header. I was merely suggesting that there are use-cases where getting a checksum on a range can be useful. -- / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 13:24:56 UTC