Hi Chris: The product group is looking at the wording you provided. I want to make sure you are unblocked after my previous response. Please let me know.
Regards, Obaid Farooqi Escalation Engineer | Microsoft Exceeding your expectations is my highest priority. If you would like to provide feedback on your case you may contact my manager at allis...@microsoft.com -----Original Message----- From: Christopher R. Hertel [mailto:c...@ubiqx.mn.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 8:59 PM To: Obaid Farooqi Cc: t...@ubiqx.com; MSSolve Case Email; cifs-proto...@samba.org Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] [REG:111061070310825] RE: [MS-PCCRC]: Handling of multi-range Range: headers is undefined. Obaid, I have a concern about the wording of the sample text your team provided. It is not necessary for the Branchcache content information format to support multi-range requests. The response to a multi-range request could clearly be sent as separate content information messages in a multi-part HTTP response. That type of response would be the correct response from an HTTP server. In fact, the actual content is sent as a multi-part HTTP response if a multi-range request is sent. As far as I can tell, there is no reason that the server could not response with a multi-part response *except* that current implementations do not know how to handle multi-part responses containing Content Information. (I have not actually tested this, ...maybe they *can* handle multi-part responses and no one knows.) So, I believe that the proper statement would be: "Clients implementing the PeerDist 1.0 protocol MUST NOT send requests for multiple byte ranges if peerdist encoding is being requested in the Accepted-Encoding header. Servers inplementing the PeerDist 1.0 protocol MUST NOT return Content Information in response to a request for multiple byte ranges of content." Please let me know what you think about my perspective on this. Thanks! Chris -)----- On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:42:51PM +0000, Obaid Farooqi wrote: > > Hi Chris: > We have finished our investigation on your question regarding the response to > a multi-range request. > > I discussed the issue with product group and here is what they think is the > proper answer. > > "The BranchCache content information format does not support multi-range > requests therefore PeerDist 1.0 capable servers cannot send PeerDist Content > Information in response to a request for multiple ranges." > > MS-PCCRTP will be modified along the lines of the above statement and I'll > let you know when the exact verbiage is available. > > Please let me know if it answers your question. If it does, I'll consider > this issue resolved. > > Regards, > Obaid Farooqi > Escalation Engineer | Microsoft > > Exceeding your expectations is my highest priority. If you would like > to provide feedback on your case you may contact my manager at > allis...@microsoft.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: ubiqx Consulting, Inc. [mailto:t...@ubiqx.com] > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 1:28 PM > To: Interoperability Documentation Help > Cc: cifs-proto...@samba.org > Subject: [MS-PCCRC]: Handling of multi-range Range: headers is undefined. > > RFC 2616 defines the format for the Range: header in such a way as to allow > multiple ranges to be specified in a single header line. An example given in > [RFC2616, section 14.35.1] is as follows: > > - The first and last bytes only (bytes 0 and 9999): bytes=0-0,-1 > > When I send a multiple byte range request, such as the following, to an IIS > server running on Windows 2008R2 with BranchCache PeerDist enabled, I do not > receive a PeerDist response (even though I know that the PeerDist Content > Information has been calculated). > > Range: bytes=1024-66559,-67890 > > Instead, I receive a (perfectly legal) standard multipart response. > > There really is nothing wrong with the response. The server has the option > of choosing not to send a PeerDist-encoded response. However, [MS-PCCRC] and > [MS-PCCRTP] do not provide any guidance on the following topics: > > * Are multi-range requests supported at all by PeerDist 1.0? > > * If not, "SHOULD" the server simply ignore the "peerdist" option in the > Accept_Encoding header? > > * If multi-range requests are supported, how should the multiple PeerDist > Content Information blocks be presented to the client? > > I imagine one of two answers. Either: > * PeerDist 1.0 capable servers MUST NOT send PeerDist Content > Information in response to a request for multiple ranges, > *or* > * The HTTP1.1 response should be multipart (multipart/byteranges?) and > each PeerDist range should be contained within a boundary. > > I suppose that the answer will depend upon what the current Windows clients > can accept. > > Please let me know how PeerDist 1.0 MUST/SHOULD/MAY handle multi-range > requests. > > Thanks. > > Chris -)----- > > -- > http://www.ubiqx.com/ Data Storage and Systems Consulting > > _______________________________________________ > cifs-protocol mailing list > cifs-protocol@cifs.org > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol Microsoft is committed to protecting your privacy. Please read the Microsoft Privacy Statement for more information.The above is an email for a support case from Microsoft Corp.REPLY ALL TO THIS MESSAGE or INCLUDE casem...@microsoft.com IN YOUR REPLY if you want your response added to the case automatically. For technical assistance, please include the Support Engineer on the TO: line. Thank you. _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list cifs-protocol@cifs.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
