#462, was: p5: editorial suggestions

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 20 June 2013 15:37 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17F721F9D87 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PSHcnt7zS1m1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7A621F9D70 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Upgtz-000804-Qb for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:35:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:35:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Upgtz-000804-Qb@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Upgtf-0007xM-66 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:35:39 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Upgtc-0006q2-LB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:35:38 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MGlZv-1V2b3H3S7d-00DVdk for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:35:10 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2013 15:35:10 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO []) [] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2013 17:35:10 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/O2Vc8ZWXO9RoMVlMm72pLp02d1R5BIWlCkYB/UO 0eufFdnsEcZfSd
Message-ID: <51C3212B.8000708@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:35:07 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <5CCE9F20-70A3-4AA0-9ACB-733B3809C106@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <5CCE9F20-70A3-4AA0-9ACB-733B3809C106@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=; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Upgtc-0006q2-LB e93e3bde23b1bb50d820fa1ebd9f918c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51C3212B.8000708@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18316
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 2013-04-23 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?

> * 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?

> 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?

> * 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.

> * 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"?

Best regards, Julian