- From: Fall, Kevin <kfall@qualcomm.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:48:19 +0000
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BB72E60F7A18154A9B1352D1DF6FEE571E244A1A@NASANEXD01E.na.qualcomm.com>
Hi all. I originally posted the question below to the authors of the range-related ID, but they suggested I post to the entire list. I just joined and am now doing so. Please see the questions below. To provide a bit more background, these questions are coming up in the context of MPEG-DASH, where (potentially real-time generated) media segments are being fetched by a client via HTTP, possibly with Range requests. As a possible alternative to what I mentioned below in the second half, would it be possible to clarify the use of "Range: 0-" as a request for 'whatever you have available for me right now'. Thanks, - Kevin From: <Fall>, Kevin Fall <kfall@qualcomm.com<mailto:kfall@qualcomm.com>> Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:51 AM PDT To: "fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>" <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>>, "ylafon@w3.org<mailto:ylafon@w3.org>" <ylafon@w3.org<mailto:ylafon@w3.org>>, "julian.reschke@greenbytes.de<mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de<mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>> Subject: question/comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-20.txt Hi folks- I was just reading over draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-20 and have two small comments/questions. First, I see there are no examples where the multipart/byteranges response contains multiple ranges that are out of order. As far as I can tell this is ok, but not explicitly mentioned or provided in an example. If, indeed, this is ok, I believe it would be helpful to mention or illustrate. Perhaps more controversial, Section 3.1 requires a Partial Content request to only be permitted if the corresponding request had a Range header field. We at least have one case where it would be rather useful to allow a Partial Content / Content-Range response even if the request didn't include the Range header. Would it be possible to consider replacing MUST with SHOULD in line #2 of Section 3.1? (along with maybe replacing 'partial GET' with simply 'GET' in line #1)? [or similar wording such as Content-Range responses SHOULD only be present in responses if partial GETs were the request types]. I can explain the use case in more detail if interested. Thanks, - Kevin
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 15:49:02 UTC