W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

#490, was: Ranges

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:05:22 +0200
Message-ID: <521E03A2.1040703@gmx.de>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi there,

changes applied with 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2363>.

Best regards, Julian

On 2013-07-01 05:57, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
> Hi Julian
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: Ranges
>> On 2013-06-27 04:53, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
>>> 2. If-Range
>>> p5 (v22) doesn't specify what to do if there is an invalid date
>>> specified (e.g. not a well formed date / fails parsing). I would
>>> propose this is a non-match and therefore range processing is
>>> suppressed. Shouldn't there be some warning or something if Range
>>> processing is suppressed for various reasons? e.g.:
>>> use of weak etag (prohibited)
>>> empty If-Range (ignore?)
>>> bad date
>>> TIA
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Adrien
>>
>> We usually do not specify behavior for broken messages, unless it's
>> needed for security reasons. Does this case qualify?
> not as far as I can tell.
>
> It just seemed to be the missing case compared to the other items that
> were covered e.g. what to do with a weak ETag.
>
> Regards
>
> Adrien
>
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 14:05:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC