Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-latest, "5.3 If-Range"

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:49:27 +1100

Hi Thomas,

On 25/10/2012, at 4:42 AM, Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]> wrote:

> <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-ran
> ge.html#header.if-range>:
> 
> Last paragraph: what should be sent by the server in case the validator in
> the If-Range does not match, and the byte-range-set in the Range header
> has empty intersection with the current resource representation ?

The text in question:

> If the validator given in the If-Range header field matches the current validator for the selected representation of the target resource, then the server should send the specified sub-range of the representation using a 206 (Partial Content) response. If the validator does not match, then the server should send the entire representation using a 200 (OK) response.

It says that if the validator does not match, the entire representation should be sent; what's the issue?

Regards,

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

---

From: Yves Lafon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:21:00 -0500 (EST)

> has empty intersection with the current resource representation ?

The current text says:
<<
If the validator does not match, then the server should send the entire 
representation using a 200 (OK) response.If the validator does not match, 
then the server should send the entire representation using a 200 (OK) 
response.
So the Range header is ignored if If-Range is not matching.

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

---

From: Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:41:25 +0000

Mark, Yves,

>should be sent; what's the issue?

Issue was who wins between the two (i.e. the unmatched validator or the
"bad" range specification), which is clearly the unmatched validator since
the range specification does not apply to the current resource state.

Thank you.