Re: Ranges
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 30 June 2013 12:30 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 09DBE21F9B34 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 05:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 pC7QSl-B0rsh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 05:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D6B21F9B79 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 05:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UtGjl-0002pR-C5 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:28:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:28:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UtGjl-0002pR-C5@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UtGjN-0002oS-UU for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:27:49 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UtGjN-00065K-2G for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:27:49 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.12]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MhPBM-1UXuOG2HTO-00MYBJ for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:27:22 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2013 12:27:22 -0000
Received: from p5DD97A5B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.2.117]) [93.217.122.91] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 30 Jun 2013 14:27:22 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18+QgoykZE+Ai+N6OkEQ2fLZry0iAoWo6756qY4rl 78wtYrBvuXtboA
Message-ID: <51D02422.1090707@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:27:14 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <emb5f097c8-6b75-4e69-ad9b-0cbd43dd6855@bodybag>
In-Reply-To: <emb5f097c8-6b75-4e69-ad9b-0cbd43dd6855@bodybag>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.15; 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=-3.435, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UtGjN-00065K-2G 06eadacd3a7ec371166694e4558b7e17
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ranges
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51D02422.1090707@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18429
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 2013-06-27 04:53, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > Just been working on range support. P5 is great improvement over 2616 > btw, answers a lot of questions. > some nits and queries... > 1. 3.1 Range: > Para 4 (p7) > > A proxy MAY either discard a > Range header field that contains a range unit it does not understand > or pass it to the next inbound server when forwarding the request. > > > > > > What does "next inbound server" mean? Range is a request header, > therefore these should only be going in 1 direction, and that's from > client to server. I'd propose > "A proxy MAY discard a Range header field that contains a range unit it > does not understand". > Para 5 (p7) > " Agreed. > A server that supports range requests ought to ignore or reject a > Range header field that consists of more than two overlapping ranges" > > does "ought to" mean SHOULD? How is the rejection envisaged, a 416? It's definitively not a SHOULD. I think it could be a "MAY" or a "can". And yes, 416 already mentions this case. > 2. If-Range > p5 (v22) doesn't specify what to do if there is an invalid date > specified (e.g. not a well formed date / fails parsing). I would > propose this is a non-match and therefore range processing is > suppressed. Shouldn't there be some warning or something if Range > processing is suppressed for various reasons? e.g.: > use of weak etag (prohibited) > empty If-Range (ignore?) > bad date > TIA > Cheers > > Adrien We usually do not specify behavior for broken messages, unless it's needed for security reasons. Does this case qualify? Best regards, Julian
- Ranges Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: Ranges Julian Reschke
- Re: Ranges Adrien W. de Croy
- #490, was: Ranges Julian Reschke