- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 14:56:11 -0700
- To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Cc: elatllat@gmail.com, ylafon@w3.org, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
FWIW, the editorial change I would suggest here would be to end the sentence after "one or more parts of the selected representation". The trailing " that correspond to the satisfiable ranges found in the request's Range header field (Section 3.1)" is irrelevant to the response (and is specified elsewhere). ....Roy > On May 12, 2015, at 1:33 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > The following errata report has been held for document update > 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 > > -------------------------------------- > Status: Held for Document Update > Type: Editorial > > Reported by: Tim <elatllat@gmail.com> > Date Reported: 2015-05-07 > Held by: Barry Leiba (IESG) > > 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. > > ----- Verifier Notes ----- > The reporter is uncertain of the meaning and asks that it be clarified, one way or the other. A future update of the document might consider clarifying wording. > > -------------------------------------- > 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 >
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2015 21:56:41 UTC