Re: Draft for Resumable Uploads

Am 05.04.2022 um 08:28 schrieb Eric J Bowman:
> ---- On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 23:09:32 -0700 *Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de>* wrote ----
>
>     Am 05.04.2022 um 08:05 schrieb Eric J Bowman:
>      > >
>      > > First, how does it uniquely identify a resumable upload?
>      > >
>      >
>      > A 206 response to a non-range request uniquely, unambiguously, and
>      > elegantly identifies an incomplete resource. Identifying a
>     resource as
>      > both incomplete *and* completeable, introduces tight coupling at the
>      > protocol layer.
>      > ...
>
>     It's an interesting idea; but we would need to modify the core specs
>     for
>     that (right now it's only defined for responses to range requests).
>
>     Best regards, Julian
>
>     -------------------------------------
>
>     Exploring the undefined aspects of HTTP to flesh out the core specs,
>     is preferable to me over adding to or even extending HTTP. Y'all
>     never told me *not* to respond 206 on a non-range request.
>     Implementations just don't care about 206 being undefined for this;
>     they just "fall back to 200". As they should. Nothing breaks.
>
>     -Eric

Hm, no.

If the client gets a 206 for incomplete content and falls back to 2xx
handling, it will assume the content is indeed complete.

Or am I missing something here?

Best regards, Julian