- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:01:03 +0200
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-13 23:50, Matthew Kerwin wrote: > > On 14 June 2014 05:00, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net > <mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote: > > Hi Julian, > > On 12 Jun 2014, at 4:55 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de > <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote: > > > > There are also other things to think about for future HTTP work, > such as, in no particular order: > > > > [...] > > > - addressing the C-E/Range Request issue > > That needs a draft and a serious amount of discussion on-list first; > two hours in a room in Toronto are not going to move it > significantly forward if we don’t have those first. > > Is anyone writing a draft here? > > > I'm thinking about it > , but I'm not > sure what approach to take. I have the start of a h2 extension-based > draft here, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.> As this is a HTTP/1.1 problem as well, the right solution IMHO is define a new range unit (bytes-before-content-coding). > > - common header field syntax (JSON?) > > This is VERY speculative (although I have thought about it too). I-D? > > > Or perhaps revisiting draft-snell-httpbis-bohe. Again, this was about HTTP in general. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2014 07:01:56 UTC