- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:31:15 +0200
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-09-28 08:11, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 28/09/2013 9:37 a.m., Ilari Liusvaara wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:38:28PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> Please have a look at the issues below; barring objections, I'll >>> close them. >>> >>> Issues are linked from >>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/15>. >>> >>> non-specific >>> #475 Strengthening SHOULDs >> Content-Range with PUT is used in the wild. > > A very good reason for the MUST being added. Such implementations are > not interoperable with middleware lacking Range support. > >> Specifically, often to upload huge amounts of data (I have seen 36GB+ >> transfer lasting for days) with client being able to resume transfer >> from where it left off if the connection fails partway for any reason. >> >> Here's docs for one: >> https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol_resumable_uploads >> > > Which is severaly broken. Any application which attempts to do that > through a framework that auto-redirects following the standard for 308 > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-http-status-308-07) will find > themselves in an infinite loop of repeated PUT + "Content-Range: bytes > */*" as they are instructed by the 308 to repeat the request without > changing it. And Google has already stated that that protocol is being phased out. Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2013 11:31:48 UTC