Re: Working Group Last Call for HTTP Random Access and Live Content

Er, I forgot the "sorry this is 3 weeks late" bit.

On 9 February 2018 at 17:46, Matthew Kerwin <> wrote:
> On 9 February 2018 at 12:38, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>> We didn't receive any feedback during the WGLC period, which is causing your chairs a bit of concern.
>> If you have read this document and believe it should progress as Experimental, please say so on-list (or privately to us, if necessary).
>> Thanks,
> For the most part, I can think of a couple of ways it could go wrong,
> but they're all pretty screwy to start with, and the worst that
> happens is a dodgy client finds that its "very large" resource has
> been truncated mid-download.  So I don't think it really needs to be
> Experimental just for that.
> That said, I don't feel comfortable about the Shift Buffer
> Representations section.  AFAIK this document is introducing this
> concept, at least as far as breaking the relationship between resource
> representation size and byte range, so it should spend more effort
> describing/standardising some of the other behaviours.  (Such as: What
> happens if I try to resume an interrupted non-range request using a
> range request (assuming I didn't make the first request when the
> original first byte was still available)? Whose byte "0" is the real
> byte "0"?)  It seems like we've opened a little Pandora's box without
> providing any advice or guidance.
> Editorial:
> * No references until Section 2.1? I would have expected an earlier
> pointer to RFC7233 (at the least), maybe even in the introduction.
> * Throughout, "indeterminate-length" (or "indeterminate length") is
> used as an adjective, as in "indeterminate length resource".
> Technically is *is* an attributive noun, but it's awkward, especially
> when not hyphenated. What about "resource of indeterminate length"?
> * From Section 2.1 on there's a bunch of ABNF, but there's no
> fore-warning of that anywhere in the document. Is it okay to defer
> that entirely to the normative reference [RFC7233]?
> * In 2.2: "Very Large Value", with caps, looks like it should have a
> definition somewhere ;)  (Also it's not consistently capitalised
> throughout the document, one way or the other.)
> * "2^^63" is new notation to me. Usually it's either "2^63" or "2**63".
> Cheers

  Matthew Kerwin

Received on Friday, 9 February 2018 07:48:37 UTC