Re: Range equivalence (was Re: 5th F2F meeting: second day summary)

Dear Yves,

> Range processing can't introduce new entity headers

Hum, thanks for pointing out the problem. As far as I can see, this will 
impact our recipes 2 and 3.
For the recipe 1 -- normal Range request expressed in bytes -- there is 
no impact.
For the upcoming recipe 4 (ACTION-154) -- Range request expressed and 
answered in a custom unit -- it will not be impacted either.

, so either we
> declare that new header as a connection header (using Connection:
> Content-Range-Mapping)
> but it will be drop by the first hop on the reply chain back to the
> originator,

So this is not really an option :-(

  or we stick the equivalence as a parameter of the
> Content-Range (but it can become quite ugly)

Something like:
  Content-Range t:npt 11.85-21.16/653;equiv="bytes 11957-13458/1346789" ?
... ugly indeed :-)

There is also a third option ... that I'm sure will have the preference 
of Conrad, is that for the recipes 2 and 3, we don't make a Range request.

> Didn't got the time for this round, we should publish as it is (it's a
> WD anyway) and get the formal grammar later.

We will not request publication before the end of the AC meeting (in 8 
days). I would prefer that in the next document, there is a bigger delta 
with respect to the previous publication, including the syntax of the 
headers. It should at least reflect all the decisions we have made ... 
which is just a question of getting our ACTIONs done! There are (still) 
8 days to act.


RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: &
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 17:24:56 UTC