W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

WGLC review of p5-19

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:59:36 +1100
Message-Id: <FAEF907D-EB5E-409B-9EB7-07A46415E168@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I believe these are editorial. 

* Abstract - "range-specific" -> "range"

* There isn't anywhere in the document where I get a sense of the overall flow of a range request sequence; it's spread all over. It's mostly in section 4 and 5.4.2; can these be combined and moved higher, with more examples?

* 4.1 206 Partial Content - "If the 206 response is the result of an If-Range request, it SHOULD NOT..." --> "If a 206 is sent in response to a request with an If-Range header field, it SHOULD NOT..."

* 4.1 Response to a Single and Multiple Ranges Request - this section title is unwieldy. Can this just be the content of 4?

* 4.1 Response... - "...this content is transmitted with a Content-Range header field, and a Content-Length header field showing the number of bytes actually transferred." This can be read to imply that a C-L header is required on 206 responses; should be rewritten to make it clear what it should be *if present*.

* 4.1 Response... - "...overlapping (see Section 7)." --> "...overlapping (see Section 7.1 for related security considerations)."

* 4.1 Response... - "When a client requests multiple ranges in one request..." --> "When a client asks for multiple ranges in one request..."

* 4.2 Combining Ranges - There's a lot of overlap here with p6 2.9. There may be a case for having both, but we should carefully make sure that they work well together.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 01:00:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:57 UTC