- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:05:22 +0200
- 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