Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 20 June 2013 15:59 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 70DFA21F9CA4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.300, 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 RUdCT5oHBmzc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4517B21F9D2A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UphGK-00043d-OM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:59:04 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:59:04 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UphGK-00043d-OM@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UphG7-0003wU-90 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:51 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UphG2-0003dI-OV for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:51 +0000
Received: from [10.71.2.195] (unknown [63.239.94.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C14B509B8; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:58:25 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <51C3212B.8000708@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:58:23 -0700
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3A1E0833-F39B-4F21-B93F-8A7144935839@mnot.net>
References: <5CCE9F20-70A3-4AA0-9ACB-733B3809C106@mnot.net> <51C3212B.8000708@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
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=-1.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.998, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UphG2-0003dI-OV d5d41b97fbacf41b2703bf04faa30690
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/3A1E0833-F39B-4F21-B93F-8A7144935839@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18318
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 20/06/2013, at 8:35 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-04-23 05:47, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> * 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.
> 
> Done in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2296>.
> 
>> * 3.1 "...and only if the result of their evaluation is leading toward a 200 (OK) response."  This is a bit informal...
> 
> Any suggestions?

"would result in"?


>> * 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."
> 
> Actually, they'd return 200 even *if* the range is both valid and satisfiable, right? Should we clarify that?

Yes; I think just drop the "if the requested…" clause.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> 4.4 mentions as a possible reason to prevent clients from resubmitting invalid requests; is this what we should mention here?

Perhaps. Looking at this again, I'm less concerned than I was, but adding that text might be helpful.


>> * 4.3 first paragraph re-defines what validator strength is; this should just be a reference to p4.
> 
> But then it doesn't seem to say exactly the same thing.

Well, that's not good, is it?


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


WFM.

Thanks,

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