IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: Relation name: "duplicate"

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Mon, 06 December 2010 08:03 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB0E3A698E for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:03:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FHmXc4s6FeuP for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:03:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F5FB3A67CF for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 27647 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2010 08:05:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.21) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 6 Dec 2010 08:05:05 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT003.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.21]) with mapi; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 01:05:05 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 01:04:50 -0700
Thread-Topic: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: Relation name: "duplicate"
Thread-Index: AcuFaEkU/HIZ8r+RQtuz3C3ZeQHT1wPs8AOg
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4B066037@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <AANLkTinUGf=2MKxnBvaiy-9UQJbDfQVwb-zpDx=L0BAO@mail.gmail.com> <20101113084026.GB23318@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <AANLkTikiDEwSuTXraiRk=ARaju+mc0V3pvLaZod5HAzK@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikiDEwSuTXraiRk=ARaju+mc0V3pvLaZod5HAzK@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "link-relations@ietf.org" <link-relations@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: Relation name: "duplicate"
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <link-relations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations>
List-Post: <mailto:link-relations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 08:03:45 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-relations-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:link-relations-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Bryan
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:10 AM

> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:27:55PM -0500,
> >  Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com> wrote
> >  a message of 25 lines which said:
> >
> >>    Refers to a resource whose available representations are
> >>    byte-for-byte
> >
> > Was there any discussion (pointer, please) on this choice of defining
> > it as a byte-for-byte equivalence? Because it will be quite strict,
> > meaning that two very same XML documents, with the same infoset but
> > different representations (for instance, UTF-8 + NFC and UTF-8 without
> > NFC), will not be regarded as "duplicate".
> 
> for what we're doing, it needs to be byte-for-byte identical.
> 
> metalink clients usually deal with large file downloads, and under certain
> conditions, might request byte ranges from different servers and patch em
> together.

I think this explanation needs to be added to the note as it more properly constrains the definition and deployment than the GET/POST discussion in the current template.

EHL

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0746.html
> 
> --
> (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
>   )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> link-relations@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email