- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 19:52:52 +0000
- To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <CAOdDvNrrLfh0yV4UdBN_HpHNfD024Kufibe3D4ZB1N-SqYVt4g@mail.gmail.com> , Patrick McManus writes: >To summarize briefly - this addresses the problem of addressing byte ranges >of dynamic (growing) content. A number of solutions have seen false starts >in this space previously, but this one has a shot at being compatible with >existing infrastructure. Varnish will almost certainly implement whatever comes out of this. Notes from our mumblings in the project: The "Very Large Value" solution it is brittle in more ways than is desirable, but try as we may, we don't see any simpler/better ways of doing it without negotiation/hints. We suggest to either put a "Quite Large" lower limit on "Very Large Value", or better yet: Make it a magic value large enough to not be a problem relative to actual Range requests. If we keep with the 9's motif from the draft, we suggest 999999999999999999 which doesn't needlessly provoke 64-bit sign issues. Typo on page 3: "accessable" -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 28 November 2016 19:53:23 UTC