brian 98/05/05 21:46:28
Modified: . STATUS Log: I have examined the mail archives extensively on this issue. It's apparent that apache'c current behavior regarding range-requests for ranges that go beyond the length of the current object is correct. See <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> where Roy says: The current behavior is correct. A range which extends beyond the actual length of the entity is possible in cases where a device is attempting to limit the response size (think PDA) even when it doesn't yet know the actual length. At least, that was the goal. So, you all can now sleep at night. Revision Changes Path 1.377 +0 -10 apache-1.3/STATUS Index: STATUS =================================================================== RCS file: /export/home/cvs/apache-1.3/STATUS,v retrieving revision 1.376 retrieving revision 1.377 diff -u -r1.376 -r1.377 --- STATUS 1998/05/06 00:23:56 1.376 +++ STATUS 1998/05/06 04:46:27 1.377 @@ -167,16 +167,6 @@ appropriate environment. Marc and Alexei don't see any big deal. Martin says that not every "env" has a -u flag. - * 206 vs. 200 issue on Content-Length - See <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Roy says sending 200 is correct, but Alexei disagrees. - Marc sides with Alexei. We were talking about two different PRs. - Apache should be sending 200 *and* Accept-Ranges. - - Dean says: I'm still really confused as to what the problem is or - isn't. If one of you three could work up a patch that would be - most excellent. - * Marc's socket options like source routing (kill them?) Marc, Martin say Yes