IETF Logo Mail Archive

custom byte ranges, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 29 October 2013 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37E711E8296 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.723
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.723 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 vL0AYU9cME+O for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB2011E8271 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MZD0K-1VGC413kB2-00Kv1i for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:03:18 +0100
Message-ID: <526FCE32.8090309@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:03:14 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: custom byte ranges, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20131028101123.0e37a698@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131028101123.0e37a698@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:l9TaiX8QfmJpW7e/A6c5+wECzhNtUa4dUdySHkqDgcEazaz1FMu 6qSxYhLAKdDVkXm/7TQziE0O4JnI7DasIJT7E5GpEVyNv5CaFIti4QI6vyOkkbdP8E7NZfs oD+DYwbUCDl7IKE48DccL+KTJPqek8yMQwWGy/i+GKAaYb8n8TJGin7rYELka1oWCU1lDku 7DwmLsTrmHtvW9Q4TgPoA==
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:03:24 -0000

On 2013-10-29 09:13, S Moonesamy wrote:
> ...
> In Section 2.2:
>
>    "Range units are intended to be extensible."
>
> Section 3.12 of RFC 2616 states that:
>
>    "The only range unit defined by HTTP/1.1 is "bytes".  HTTP/1.1
>     implementations MAY ignore ranges specified using other units.
>     HTTP/1.1 has been designed to allow implementations of applications
>     that do not depend on knowledge of ranges."
>
> I consider the creation of the registry as "it does not cost anything to
> add one more registry".  The text from RFC 2616 suggests that the only
> unit specified is "bytes" and that HTTP/1.1 does not depend upon the
> knowledge of this optional feature.  I don't see any reason to have
> other range units.
> ...

Actually, it was a case of "this is used in the wild already, and more 
use is coming up, so better document it properly and add the registry". 
See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/85> for the history.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email