Re: WGLC: p5 multiple Range headers

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 09 April 2013 19:18 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 684B621F9865 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:18:51 -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 rvsWcwBrG9U2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D485021F984D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UPe3G-0004aA-Tk for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:17:54 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:17:54 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UPe3G-0004aA-Tk@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 1UPe3D-0003bt-Un for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:17:52 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UPcVf-0005G2-DL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:39:08 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.31]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Mfl1O-1UBEv643l6-00N9Ug for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:38:41 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Apr 2013 17:38:40 -0000
Received: from p54BB284B.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.2.117]) [84.187.40.75] by mail.gmx.net (mp031) with SMTP; 09 Apr 2013 19:38:40 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/hpM5Xf7jh+JZpSko7h6pSYQWXSeL4n2QSjXciVW 4KSCRTJhn9PnaR
Message-ID: <5164521F.8030705@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:38:39 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <515C958F.6090608@andrew.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <515C958F.6090608@andrew.cmu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; 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 1UPcVf-0005G2-DL f5008e3260672fca1ff507a80b5a85df
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC: p5 multiple Range headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5164521F.8030705@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17210
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 2013-04-03 22:48, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Per
> https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.html#field.order
> multiple Range header fields aren't allowed due to the field value
> containing more than just a comma-separated list (bytes-unit).  That
> being said, there was a discussion on the public-media-fragment@w3.org
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0064.html>
> list a few years ago about multiple Range header fields, and in that
> thread Yves didn't state that multiple Range header fields are prohibited.

Well, he should have :-)

> I'm wondering if this was an oversight or if multiple Range header
> fields actually appear in the wild and clients expect it to work. If
> they are allowed, then the Range header needs to be called out as an
> exception in p1.  If not, was this thread just an isolated instance of
> confusion, or is it worth adding text to p5 to explicitly state that
> only one Range header is allowed?

I believe it was just an instance of confusion, and I'd prefer that the 
spec doesn't restate things all over the place...

Best regards, Julian