#462, was: p5: editorial suggestions

On 2013-04-23 05:47, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> * 2.1 "A byte range operation MAY specify..."   This is the only place "operation" is used in the document; it should either be defined, or replaced by another term.

Done in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2296>.

> * 3.1 "...and only if the result of their evaluation is leading toward a 200 (OK) response."  This is a bit informal...

Any suggestions?

> * 3.1 "If all of the preconditions are true, the server supports the Range header field for the target resource, and the specified range(s) are invalid or unsatisfiable, the server SHOULD send a 416 (Range Not Satisfiable) response."
>
> Yet 4.4 says: "because servers are free to ignore Range, many implementations will simply respond with 200 (OK) if the requested ranges
> are invalid or not satisfiable."

Actually, they'd return 200 even *if* the range is both valid and 
satisfiable, right? Should we clarify that?

> I think sometimes responding with 200 is the right thing to do here sometimes, and so we shouldn't put a requirement against it. We could either remove the SHOULD, or qualify it with something that allows the server to make a judgement call.

4.4 mentions as a possible reason to prevent clients from resubmitting 
invalid requests; is this what we should mention here?

> * 4.3 first paragraph re-defines what validator strength is; this should just be a reference to p4.

But then it doesn't seem to say exactly the same thing.

> * 4.3 last paragraph places a requirement on clients to "record" sets of ranges; how exactly do they meet this requirement? Terminology seems strange.

Maybe "process"?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 15:35:39 UTC