p5: editorial suggestions

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 23 April 2013 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17A821F95E0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AR4gOgND0TxU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC8D21F95DC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUUDL-0002gP-0A for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:48:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:48:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUUDL-0002gP-0A@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UUUDG-0002fg-C3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:48:14 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UUUDF-0006ac-Pl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:48:14 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7031C50A86 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:47:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5CCE9F20-70A3-4AA0-9ACB-733B3809C106@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:47:51 +1000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.352, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UUUDF-0006ac-Pl 21cc58dbbeac2993e53059f8846ea961
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: p5: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5CCE9F20-70A3-4AA0-9ACB-733B3809C106@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17477
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>

* 2.1 "A byte range operation MAY specify..."   This is the only place "operation" is used in the document; it should either be defined, or replaced by another term.

* 3.1 "...and only if the result of their evaluation is leading toward a 200 (OK) response."  This is a bit informal...

* 3.1 "If all of the preconditions are true, the server supports the Range header field for the target resource, and the specified range(s) are invalid or unsatisfiable, the server SHOULD send a 416 (Range Not Satisfiable) response." 

Yet 4.4 says: "because servers are free to ignore Range, many implementations will simply respond with 200 (OK) if the requested ranges
are invalid or not satisfiable."

I think sometimes responding with 200 is the right thing to do here sometimes, and so we shouldn't put a requirement against it. We could either remove the SHOULD, or qualify it with something that allows the server to make a judgement call.

* 4.3 first paragraph re-defines what validator strength is; this should just be a reference to p4.

* 4.3 last paragraph places a requirement on clients to "record" sets of ranges; how exactly do they meet this requirement? Terminology seems strange.



--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/