Re: RFC7233 Range Requests: Indeterminate lengths
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 04 March 2015 19:37 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BE71A7017 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:37:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gj3sRSd0OULX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AADD21A1A62 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YTF2y-0000WI-Bm for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 19:33:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 19:33:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YTF2y-0000WI-Bm@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1YTF2s-0000VI-Q3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 19:33:26 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1YTF2r-0001c7-B2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 19:33:26 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.177] ([93.217.84.5]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M6jMS-1XWzYT1EyS-00wWZP; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 20:32:57 +0100
Message-ID: <54F75DE8.8050802@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 20:32:56 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rodger Combs <rodger@plexapp.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <DB42D624-C491-4790-8412-799C634AEBD5@plex.tv>
In-Reply-To: <DB42D624-C491-4790-8412-799C634AEBD5@plex.tv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ah5upyVP+ecO/lu4byq2eraVdqlLbq8R7FhD6Lt7t+jnOLnlHNo Jt+/bldg0bx/ORP2vVn8FufvPNDNHj4Q3RmkWrf5hFtg1dbYa3HHIBnKy19EHRHaMJCTpz8 PrL+0ypLOuT+qK0+6nIHlE2iqXpui1XcB3SBiAyzfcBVzJwGAR+oA6aNxK1FAwCqBQOxjY+ iBvCI3bouL9bIT31+XihQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.372, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YTF2r-0001c7-B2 436f2b20025422f54af5fe01c8d28ce0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: RFC7233 Range Requests: Indeterminate lengths
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54F75DE8.8050802@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28886
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
On 2015-02-19 03:22, Rodger Combs wrote: > It appears that the current HTTP/2 spec doesn't allow 206 Partial Content replies to be of indeterminate length. RFC 7233 section 4.2 requires that the "last-byte-pos" field in the Content-Range header be a number, rather than "*". It'd be convenient to allow the last byte position to be indeterminate if the requested range lacked a "last-byte-pos" field. Would this change be within the scope of HTTP/2 to make? No, it's not in scope for HTTP/2, because: a) HTTP/2 is done b) HTTP/2 can be considered an alternate wire format for HTTP; so this kind of change should apply to HTTP/1.1 as well That being said, extensions like this can be discussed in separate specs, independently of the HTTP protocol version. Best regards, Julian
- RFC7233 Range Requests: Indeterminate lengths Rodger Combs
- Re: RFC7233 Range Requests: Indeterminate lengths Julian Reschke