Subject: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-rand-access-live-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:45:55 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-rand-access-live-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-rand-access-live/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3189

I can't tell whether this document is intended to have normative
content or not. I note that you cite RFC 2119 not RFC 8174, and have
some lower-case should-type language....

COMMENTS
S 5.
>      seek request or content-range response.  Also, some implementations
>      (e.g.  JavaScript-based clients and servers) are not able to
>      represent all values beyond 2^^53.  So similarly, if there's no
>      expectation that a representation will ever exceed 2^^53 bytes,
>      values smaller than this limit should be used for the last-byte-pos
>      in byte-range requests.

What happens if you are wrong about this?