Re: WGLC: p5 MUSTs

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 07 May 2013 05:09 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 27F9E21F92E1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 22:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 hrHuzNY7dVew for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 22:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0684421F9321 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 May 2013 22:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UZa8e-0006rY-UM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 05:08:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 05:08:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UZa8e-0006rY-UM@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 1UZa8U-0006qR-NO for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 05:08:22 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UZa8R-0005w7-1k for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 05:08:22 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.105.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA36F22E259; Tue, 7 May 2013 01:07:56 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <51806D79.6030002@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:07:53 +1000
Cc: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A41C153E-A176-4077-BD49-742909A570B5@mnot.net>
References: <D69329FD-7456-46C5-BE24-6E7EE7E48C39@mnot.net> <51806D79.6030002@measurement-factory.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.423, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UZa8R-0005w7-1k c30fa01718398b7cc4cb257451117783
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC: p5 MUSTs
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/A41C153E-A176-4077-BD49-742909A570B5@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17855
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>

Now <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/485> (omitting the last one, since that seems to be settled).


On 01/05/2013, at 11:18 AM, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
>    These comments are based on the "latest" snapshot dated Mon 29 Apr
> 2013 03:13:05 PM MDT at
> https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.html
> 
> I hope these comments are "editorial in nature".
> 
> 
>> Clients MUST NOT use an entity-tag marked as weak in an If-Range
>> field value and MUST NOT use a Last-Modified date ...
> 
> Please replace "use" with "generate" to explicitly exclude proxies from
> policing these headers (i.e., to allow proxies to forward these headers
> "as is"). This was already done for other If-Range header rules, but
> these two MUST NOTs have slipped through the cracks.
> 
> 
>> A client that cannot process a multipart/byteranges response MUST NOT
>> ask for multiple ranges in a single request.
> 
> A similar concern here for "MUST NOT ask". Please reword the above to
> use "MUST NOT generate".
> 
> This is especially important because a proxy may not be able to fully
> "process" a multipart/byteranges response (whatever that means) but it
> can still forward a request for multiple ranges and correctly forward
> the 206 response back to the client because HTTPbis no longer allows
> multipart/byteranges media type to determine the message body length.
> 
> 
>> 4.1 206 Partial Content
> 
> Since HTTPbis no longer allows multipart/byteranges media type to
> determine the message body length, perhaps it would be a good idea to
> explicitly mention that a server MAY generate a 206 Partial Content
> response (with single or multiple ranges) without a Content-Length
> header and may use chunked encoding? I bet many clients will break when
> this starts happening, and there are currently no examples or warnings
> that would prepare developers for that possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Alex.
> 

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