Re: Byte range PATCH

Hi Austin,


Il giorno mer 3 ago 2022 alle ore 01:15 Austin William Wright
<aaa@bzfx.net> ha scritto:
> I wrote and published draft-wright-http-patch-byterange-00 for your consideration. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks for the interesting draft: I think we need something like this.
About Digest, it won't help in requests because  PATCH request content
conveys
the checksum of the enclosed representation.

To convey the checksum of the complete representation data (e.g. the
complete file, and not the byte ranges)
you need to use:

- either PUT and extend content-range for requests;
- either a new specific method;
- either a new specific field associated with a specific method (e.g. PATCH).

There was some discussion on that, and while I think that PUT it would
be the cleaner and most intuitive solution, some interoperability
issues with existing implementations that do not understand
Content-Range might arise (e.g. you'd need to ensure that the server
support content-range in requests to avoid replacing an existing
resource with the "partial" representation conveyed in PUT). In
general RFC9110 is now more flexible on PUT + partial representations
than in the past.

About sending multiple ranges in a single request, is it possible to
use some mechanism such as Expect or similar to allow the client to
send separate ranges?
In general, it is even possible for resumable uploads that there's no
significant advantage in designing a way to convey multiple
content-ranges in the same request and it is simpler to just issue
multiple requests so that each can have its own representation
metadata managed directly via HTTP.

Great to hear from you all,
R.

Received on Monday, 8 August 2022 14:32:15 UTC