Re: question/comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-20.txt

[KF] comments inline...

On 9/18/12 10:51 AM PDT, "Julian Reschke" <> wrote:

>On 2012-09-18 19:05, Fall, Kevin wrote:
>> ...
>> I think you do understand the use case.  However, while I believe I
>> understand the original intent of Range, it seems to me it is a
>> if not elegant way to do "server driven" partial content.  Indeed, would
>> you agree that the method I suggested above (client suggests multiple
>> ranges including (0-), (0-) would be "legal" to indicate to the server
>> that it is permitted to repond with multiple ranges of sizes chosen by
>> server?
>The authors aren't relevant here; the Working Group is.

[KF] ok.

>That being said, our current charter (for HTTP/1.1) essentially forbids
>to do anything that could break existing clients, and also doesn't
>really allow us to invent anything new.

[KF] fair enough.

>(The situation for HTTP/2.0 is slightly different)

[KF]  Right.  So, is the group comfortable with considering this issue in
the context of HTTP/2.0 discussions?

- Kevin

>Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 16:59:03 UTC