www-apache-bugdb mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitry Khrustalev <d...@bog.msu.su>
Subject Re: protocol/2107: Additional arguments for fixing PR#1464 ("Range: 0-" bug)
Date Wed, 06 May 1998 09:39:18 GMT

On Wed, 6 May 1998, Андрей Чернов wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 1998 at 04:44:02AM -0000, brian@hyperreal.org wrote:
> > > 3) RFC 2068 eslecially points that the server MUST return 206 for ANY Range:
request.
> > 
> > Where?  That's not even possible - the resource might not even exist, so how
> > can it return a 206 instead of a 404?  I'm not being facetious here.
> 
> Well, not ANY but ANY SUCCESSFUL, exact quote is:
> 
> ---
> If the server supports the Range header and the specified range or
> ranges are appropriate for the entity:
> 
> o  The presence of a Range header in an unconditional GET modifies
>    what is returned if the GET is otherwise successful. In other
>    words, the response carries a status code of 206 (Partial
>    Content) instead of 200 (OK).
> ---
> 
> As I read it - "the presence of a Range header" cause "the response
> carries 206 instead of 200"
> 

	Since server MAY ignore the Range header, i see no MUST here.
The behavior you are arguing for will cause intermediate caches drop
perfectly cacheable responses if they do not implement ranges. ( see
section 10.2.7 of draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-02 ).

	-Dima


Mime
View raw message