Typo on page 3: "accessable" Did I miss something or is the "Very Large Value" definition a bit fuzzy?
Overall, I'd prefer have the client use an open ended range, possibly adding a header to say that it refuse/accept/requires aggregation. And the server answer would just send 200, 416 or 206 + CL (no aggregation) or 206 + chunked (aggregation). For HEAD requests, allow content range to answer "1000-*/*" to say it allows an open-ended range starting at byte 1000. Am I oversimplifying here? On Nov 23, 2016 11:40, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[email protected]> wrote: > This IETF draft is interesting: > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pratt-httpbis-rand-access-live-00.txt > > The HTTPbis WG is looking for "go/nogo" input if this is something > which should be adopted. > > Input welcome > > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > > _______________________________________________ > varnish-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev >
_______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
