Re: Content-Range on responses other than 206

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 27 July 2011 14:18 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 308A221F8B9F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.336
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ltn+oukbPo+4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57AE821F8B89 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Qm4vz-0000rg-4E for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:18:03 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Qm4vo-0000qN-RE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:17:53 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by aji.keio.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Qm4vm-0005kw-7G for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:17:51 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2011 14:17:17 -0000
Received: from dhcp-14e3.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp057) with SMTP; 27 Jul 2011 16:17:17 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+8SZZecFy8YX7p/gQShp+/62iIbD0EDrrGOOZSj8 uS0Ppovx84x5Uq
Message-ID: <4E301DEA.6070904@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:17:14 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <FE504DA6-4D3A-4EAC-9416-4C28B832312A@mnot.net> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1107252125180.27065@wnl.j3.bet> <08AFA085-0F1A-4506-815E-9AA557A0BF18@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <08AFA085-0F1A-4506-815E-9AA557A0BF18@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.23; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1Qm4vm-0005kw-7G d10f8b55e896a133aed76db6285227f2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Content-Range on responses other than 206
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4E301DEA.6070904@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11113
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Qm4vz-0000rg-4E@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:18:03 +0000

On 2011-07-26 21:47, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> On 25/07/2011, at 10:38 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:
>
>> It MUST be ignored when present in responses with other response code than 206 Partial Content [3.1].
>
>
> This might be a bit too strong; I prefer saying that it doesn't have any meaning on other messages by default, so that if someone wants to specify a new status code where it does make sense, they can do so without revising HTTP (not that this is terribly likely, I know).

Sounds good.