Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Subject: RE: protocol/6973: http_protocol.c isn't compatible with HTTP RFC
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:18:46 -0600
Message-ID: <009c01c06595$b815e8f0$92c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20001214061606.F30050@hand.dotat.at>
Importance: Normal

> From: Tony Finch [mailto:dot@dotat.at]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 12:16 AM
> 
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> >
> >One more observation.  If the code (existing or future) 
> receives a range
> >1001-1000 we don't fail the request.
> 
> Actually, in that case we do the right thing -- we ignore the header.
> 
> >OTOH, we need to be careful here, since a request for 1000-1001 from
> >a 100 byte file would result in a 1000-99 style spec, which we should
> >dishonor, but not fail the request if there are valid requests.
> 
> In that case we should generate a 406 error, which we don't 
> currently do.
> 
> I think the current boolean return value from parse_byterange is
> inadequate and it needs to become a three-way value: OK, 
> ingore, and bad.

+1 (that is +1 to your proposal to add +1, 0, -1 :-)