Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (4358)

Hi Julian,

Thanks for the response.
Currently I think the RFC reads ambiguously as to whether this behavior is permitted.
I believe it should be permitted, but if not please explicitly state it should not be permitted in the RFC;
"A response must include the full requested range."


On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de <mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>> wrote:
Unless I'm missing something this sounds like a technical change to me.

Best regards, Julian


On 2015-05-07 20:43, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7233,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7233&eid=4358 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7233&eid=4358>

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Tim <elatllat@gmail.com <mailto:elatllat@gmail.com>>

Section: 4

Original Text
-------------
The 206 (Partial Content) status code indicates that the server is
successfully fulfilling a range request for the target resource by
transferring one or more parts of the selected representation that
correspond to the satisfiable ranges found in the request's Range
header field (Section 3.1).

Corrected Text
--------------
The 206 (Partial Content) status code indicates that the server is
successfully fulfilling a range request for the target resource by
transferring one or more parts of the selected representation that
correspond to the satisfiable ranges found in the request's Range
header field (Section 3.1). A response may chose to satisfy only
part of a requested range.


Notes
-----
Firefox and Chrome already behave as if the "Corrected Text"
statement is true.

It may be desirable if for example a user returns to a
html5 video with auto play, pauses the video and is only
interested in responding to a comment on the page. In this example
it would be unnecessarily costly to transfer the whole 128GB when
the user only consumes a few MB.

Alternative: maybe it should only be true if last-byte-pos is
absent.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC7233 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests
Publication Date    : June 2014
Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., Y. Lafon, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG



-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782