- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:11:02 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-01-24 02:14, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Digging this up... > > On 07/01/2013, at 9:53 PM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >>> Now <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/407> >>> >>> On 24/10/2012, at 11:21 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21.html#status.416>: >>>> >>>> "When this status code is returned for a byte-range request, the response SHOULD include a Content-Range header field specifying the current length of the representation (see Section 5.2). This response MUST NOT use the multipart/byteranges content-type. For example," >>>> >>>> What is this "MUST NOT" about? Are there clients that will ignore the status code and assume success if they see the expected content-type? >> >> If a multipart/byteranges can be sent in response to a 416, it can also be send in response to a 200, or to a 206. >> In the case of a 206, you will have a Content-Range in the response and in the multipart/byteranges package, so it will be a partial response of a partial response without asking for it. (the restriction is also there for 206, see discussion around #405). > > > Why is this a problem? If the 200 response is: > > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT > Last-Modified: Tue, 14 July 04:58:08 GMT > Content-Length: 2048 > Content-Type: multipart-byteranges; boundary=ORIGINAL_BOUNDARY > > then the single-range 206 would be something like: > > HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content > Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT > Last-Modified: Tue, 14 July 04:58:08 GMT > Content-Range: bytes 1024-2048/2048 > Content-Length: 1024 > Content-Type: multipart-byteranges; boundary=ORIGINAL_BOUNDARY > > while the multi-part 206 would be: > > HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content > Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT > Last-Modified: Tue, 14 July 04:58:08 GMT > Content-Length: 449 > Content-Type: multipart/byteranges; boundary=OUTER_BOUNDARY > > --OUTER_BOUNDARY > Content-Type: multipart-byteranges; boundary=ORIGINAL_BOUNDARY > Content-Range: bytes 3-10/2048 > > ...the first range... > --OUTER_BOUNDARY > Content-Type: video/example > Content-Range: bytes 400-500/2048 > > ...the second range > --OUTER_BOUNDARY-- > > Note that p5-latest says: > >> When a 206 response is generated, the sender must generate the following header fields: >> >> • Either a Content-Range header field (Section 4.2) indicating the single range included with this response, or a multipart/byteranges Content-Type indicating that multiple ranges are enclosed as multipart body-parts. > > > ... which gives clients enough information to determine what kind of response the 206 is. > > So, while it's a pathological case, I believe that as long as the recipient dispatches correctly, you can transfer multipart/byteranges just as if it were any other media type on the Web. > > Also, I note that Roy removed this requirement in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2066>. So, I'm going to mark this issue as 'incorporated' for now; if we find that it needs to change, we can reopen (since that state is just a note that an editor has incorporated a proposed fix for the issue). > ... +1 Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 15:11:38 UTC