RE: Issue with "bytes" Range Unit and live streaming

On Thursday,21 April 2016 05:18 craig@ecaspia.com wrote:

>

> Re: Representation caching

>

> Whether a representation is considered cacheable in this use case is at

> the discretion of the origin server and specific to the use

> case/application - as it should be (imho). There's no *necessity* in

> having a periodically-appended resource marked non-cachable, correct? If

> the resource mutates, it's not cacheable. If it's just being appended

> to, it is cacheable. And if an appended resource stops being appended

> to, it doesn't invalidate the cached representation.

>



I couldn't agree more. However, it seemed the prevailing sentiment when we tried to resolve the related issue of ranges before content codings, with a new bbcc unit (bytes-before-content-coding), was that the use cases for append-only growth represent an insignificant portion of HTTP traffic. "We live by app-specific protocols to handle these cases. What is so special ... that it must be addressed by http (in a very ugly way)?" [1]



[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/1383.html







This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.