draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-00.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-01.txt 
Network Working Group R. Fielding, Ed. Network Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.
Internet-Draft Day Software Internet-Draft Day Software
Obsoletes: 2068, 2616 J. Gettys Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys
(if approved) One Laptop per Child Intended status: Standards Track One Laptop per Child
Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul Expires: July 15, 2008 J. Mogul
Expires: June 22, 2008 HP HP
H. Frystyk H. Frystyk
Microsoft Microsoft
L. Masinter L. Masinter
Adobe Systems Adobe Systems
P. Leach P. Leach
Microsoft Microsoft
T. Berners-Lee T. Berners-Lee
W3C/MIT W3C/MIT
December 20, 2007 Y. Lafon, Ed.
W3C
J. Reschke, Ed.
greenbytes
January 12, 2008
HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses
draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-00 draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global
information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 5 of the information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 5 of the
seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as
"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 5 defines "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 5 defines
range-specific requests and the rules for constructing and combining range-specific requests and the rules for constructing and combining
responses to those requests. responses to those requests.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
This version of the HTTP specification contains only minimal
editorial changes from [RFC2616] (abstract, introductory paragraph,
and authors' addresses). All other changes are due to partitioning
the original into seven mostly independent parts. The intent is for
readers of future drafts to able to use draft 00 as the basis for
comparison when the WG makes later changes to the specification text.
This draft will shortly be followed by draft 01 (containing the first
round of changes that have already been agreed to on the mailing
list). There is no point in reviewing this draft other than to
verify that the partitioning has been done correctly. Roy T.
Fielding, Yves Lafon, and Julian Reschke will be the editors after
draft 00 is submitted.
Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working
group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues list is group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues list is
at <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11> and related at <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11> and related
documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at
<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>. <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.
This draft incorporates those issue resolutions that were either
collected in the original RFC2616 errata list
(<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata>), or which were agreed upon on the
mailing list between October 2006 and November 2007 (as published in
"draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03").
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Range Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Range Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. 206 Partial Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. 206 Partial Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Combining Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Combining Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Accept-Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Accept-Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Content-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Content-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. If-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3. If-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4. Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.1. Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4.1. Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.2. Range Retrieval Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4.2. Range Retrieval Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges . . . . . . 13 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix B. Compatibility with Previous Versions . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18 B.1. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B.2. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document will define aspects of HTTP related to range requests, HTTP clients often encounter interrupted data transfers as a result
partial responses, and the multipart/byteranges media type. Right of cancelled requests or dropped connections. When a cache has
now it only includes the extracted relevant sections of RFC 2616 stored a partial representation, it is desirable to request the
[RFC2616] without edit. remainder of that representation in a subsequent request rather than
transfer the entire representation. There are also a number of Web
applications that benefit from being able to request only a subset of
a larger representation, such as a single page of a very large
document or only part of an image to be rendered by a device with
limited local storage.
This document defines HTTP/1.1 range requests, partial responses, and
the multipart/byteranges media type. The protocol for range requests
is an OPTIONAL feature of HTTP, designed so resources or recipients
that do not implement this feature can respond as if it is a normal
GET request without impacting interoperability. Partial responses
are indicated by a distinct status code to not be mistaken for full
responses by intermediate caches that might not implement the
feature.
Although the HTTP range request mechanism is designed to allow for
extensible range types, this specification only defines requests for
byte ranges.
1.1. Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it
implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or
REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its
protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that
satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD
level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally
compliant."
2. Range Units 2. Range Units
HTTP/1.1 allows a client to request that only part (a range of) the HTTP/1.1 allows a client to request that only part (a range of) the
response entity be included within the response. HTTP/1.1 uses range response entity be included within the response. HTTP/1.1 uses range
units in the Range (Section 5.4) and Content-Range (Section 5.2) units in the Range (Section 5.4) and Content-Range (Section 5.2)
header fields. An entity can be broken down into subranges according header fields. An entity can be broken down into subranges according
to various structural units. to various structural units.
range-unit = bytes-unit | other-range-unit range-unit = bytes-unit | other-range-unit
skipping to change at page 5, line 4 skipping to change at page 5, line 34
The response MUST include the following header fields: The response MUST include the following header fields:
o Either a Content-Range header field (Section 5.2) indicating the o Either a Content-Range header field (Section 5.2) indicating the
range included with this response, or a multipart/byteranges range included with this response, or a multipart/byteranges
Content-Type including Content-Range fields for each part. If a Content-Type including Content-Range fields for each part. If a
Content-Length header field is present in the response, its value Content-Length header field is present in the response, its value
MUST match the actual number of OCTETs transmitted in the message- MUST match the actual number of OCTETs transmitted in the message-
body. body.
o Date o Date
o ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent o ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent
in a 200 response to the same request in a 200 response to the same request
o Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might o Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might
differ from that sent in any previous response for the same differ from that sent in any previous response for the same
variant variant
If the 206 response is the result of an If-Range request that used a If the 206 response is the result of an If-Range request, the
strong cache validator (see Section 4 of [Part4]), the response response SHOULD NOT include other entity-headers. Otherwise, the
SHOULD NOT include other entity-headers. If the response is the response MUST include all of the entity-headers that would have been
result of an If-Range request that used a weak validator, the returned with a 200 (OK) response to the same request.
response MUST NOT include other entity-headers; this prevents
inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies and updated headers.
Otherwise, the response MUST include all of the entity-headers that
would have been returned with a 200 (OK) response to the same
request.
A cache MUST NOT combine a 206 response with other previously cached A cache MUST NOT combine a 206 response with other previously cached
content if the ETag or Last-Modified headers do not match exactly, content if the ETag or Last-Modified headers do not match exactly,
see 4. see Section 4.
A cache that does not support the Range and Content-Range headers A cache that does not support the Range and Content-Range headers
MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial) responses. MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial Content) responses.
3.2. 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable 3.2. 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable
A server SHOULD return a response with this status code if a request A server SHOULD return a response with this status code if a request
included a Range request-header field (Section 5.4), and none of the included a Range request-header field (Section 5.4), and none of the
range-specifier values in this field overlap the current extent of range-specifier values in this field overlap the current extent of
the selected resource, and the request did not include an If-Range the selected resource, and the request did not include an If-Range
request-header field. (For byte-ranges, this means that the first- request-header field. (For byte-ranges, this means that the first-
byte-pos of all of the byte-range-spec values were greater than the byte-pos of all of the byte-range-spec values were greater than the
current length of the selected resource.) current length of the selected resource.)
skipping to change at page 6, line 23 skipping to change at page 6, line 48
o The two cache validators match using the strong comparison o The two cache validators match using the strong comparison
function (see Section 4 of [Part4]). function (see Section 4 of [Part4]).
If either requirement is not met, the cache MUST use only the most If either requirement is not met, the cache MUST use only the most
recent partial response (based on the Date values transmitted with recent partial response (based on the Date values transmitted with
every response, and using the incoming response if these values are every response, and using the incoming response if these values are
equal or missing), and MUST discard the other partial information. equal or missing), and MUST discard the other partial information.
5. Header Field Definitions 5. Header Field Definitions
This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header
HTTP/1.1 header fields. For entity-header fields, both sender and fields related to range requests and partial responses.
recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who
sends and who receives the entity. For entity-header fields, both sender and recipient refer to either
the client or the server, depending on who sends and who receives the
entity.
5.1. Accept-Ranges 5.1. Accept-Ranges
The Accept-Ranges response-header field allows the server to indicate The Accept-Ranges response-header field allows the server to indicate
its acceptance of range requests for a resource: its acceptance of range requests for a resource:
Accept-Ranges = "Accept-Ranges" ":" acceptable-ranges Accept-Ranges = "Accept-Ranges" ":" acceptable-ranges
acceptable-ranges = 1#range-unit | "none" acceptable-ranges = 1#range-unit | "none"
Origin servers that accept byte-range requests MAY send Origin servers that accept byte-range requests MAY send
skipping to change at page 8, line 22 skipping to change at page 8, line 48
o The last 500 bytes: o The last 500 bytes:
bytes 734-1233/1234 bytes 734-1233/1234
When an HTTP message includes the content of a single range (for When an HTTP message includes the content of a single range (for
example, a response to a request for a single range, or to a request example, a response to a request for a single range, or to a request
for a set of ranges that overlap without any holes), this content is for a set of ranges that overlap without any holes), this content is
transmitted with a Content-Range header, and a Content-Length header transmitted with a Content-Range header, and a Content-Length header
showing the number of bytes actually transferred. For example, showing the number of bytes actually transferred. For example,
HTTP/1.1 206 Partial content HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
Content-Range: bytes 21010-47021/47022 Content-Range: bytes 21010-47021/47022
Content-Length: 26012 Content-Length: 26012
Content-Type: image/gif Content-Type: image/gif
When an HTTP message includes the content of multiple ranges (for When an HTTP message includes the content of multiple ranges (for
example, a response to a request for multiple non-overlapping example, a response to a request for multiple non-overlapping
ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message. The multipart ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message. The multipart
media type used for this purpose is "multipart/byteranges" as defined media type used for this purpose is "multipart/byteranges" as defined
in Appendix A. See Appendix B for a compatibility issue. in Appendix A. See Appendix B.1 for a compatibility issue.
A response to a request for a single range MUST NOT be sent using the A response to a request for a single range MUST NOT be sent using the
multipart/byteranges media type. A response to a request for multipart/byteranges media type. A response to a request for
multiple ranges, whose result is a single range, MAY be sent as a multiple ranges, whose result is a single range, MAY be sent as a
multipart/byteranges media type with one part. A client that cannot multipart/byteranges media type with one part. A client that cannot
decode a multipart/byteranges message MUST NOT ask for multiple byte- decode a multipart/byteranges message MUST NOT ask for multiple byte-
ranges in a single request. ranges in a single request.
When a client requests multiple byte-ranges in one request, the When a client requests multiple byte-ranges in one request, the
server SHOULD return them in the order that they appeared in the server SHOULD return them in the order that they appeared in the
skipping to change at page 9, line 42 skipping to change at page 10, line 19
If the client has no entity tag for an entity, but does have a Last- If the client has no entity tag for an entity, but does have a Last-
Modified date, it MAY use that date in an If-Range header. (The Modified date, it MAY use that date in an If-Range header. (The
server can distinguish between a valid HTTP-date and any form of server can distinguish between a valid HTTP-date and any form of
entity-tag by examining no more than two characters.) The If-Range entity-tag by examining no more than two characters.) The If-Range
header SHOULD only be used together with a Range header, and MUST be header SHOULD only be used together with a Range header, and MUST be
ignored if the request does not include a Range header, or if the ignored if the request does not include a Range header, or if the
server does not support the sub-range operation. server does not support the sub-range operation.
If the entity tag given in the If-Range header matches the current If the entity tag given in the If-Range header matches the current
entity tag for the entity, then the server SHOULD provide the entity tag for the entity, then the server SHOULD provide the
specified sub-range of the entity using a 206 (Partial content) specified sub-range of the entity using a 206 (Partial Content)
response. If the entity tag does not match, then the server SHOULD response. If the entity tag does not match, then the server SHOULD
return the entire entity using a 200 (OK) response. return the entire entity using a 200 (OK) response.
5.4. Range 5.4. Range
5.4.1. Byte Ranges 5.4.1. Byte Ranges
Since all HTTP entities are represented in HTTP messages as sequences Since all HTTP entities are represented in HTTP messages as sequences
of bytes, the concept of a byte range is meaningful for any HTTP of bytes, the concept of a byte range is meaningful for any HTTP
entity. (However, not all clients and servers need to support byte- entity. (However, not all clients and servers need to support byte-
skipping to change at page 12, line 35 skipping to change at page 13, line 14
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
No additional security considerations have been identified beyond No additional security considerations have been identified beyond
those applicable to HTTP in general [Part1]. those applicable to HTTP in general [Part1].
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
Most of the specification of ranges is based on work originally done Most of the specification of ranges is based on work originally done
by Ari Luotonen and John Franks, with additional input from Steve by Ari Luotonen and John Franks, with additional input from Steve
Zilles. Zilles, Daniel W. Connolly, Roy T. Fielding, Jim Gettys, Martin
Hamilton, Koen Holtman, Shel Kaplan, Paul Leach, Alex Lopez-Ortiz,
Based on an XML translation of RFC 2616 by Julian Reschke. Larry Masinter, Jeff Mogul, Lou Montulli, David W. Morris, Luigi
Rizzo, and Bill Weihl.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References
[Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "HTTP/1.1, Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing", and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections,
draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-00 (work in progress), and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-01
December 2007. (work in progress), January 2008.
[Part3] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload
and Content Negotiation", draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01
(work in progress), January 2008.
[Part4] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part4] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "HTTP/1.1, Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
part 4: Conditional Requests", and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional
draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-00 (work in progress), Requests", draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-01 (work in
December 2007. progress), January 2008.
[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",
draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01 (work in progress),
January 2008.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996. November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
Appendix A. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges Appendix A. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges
When an HTTP 206 (Partial Content) response message includes the When an HTTP 206 (Partial Content) response message includes the
content of multiple ranges (a response to a request for multiple non- content of multiple ranges (a response to a request for multiple non-
overlapping ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message- overlapping ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message-
body. The media type for this purpose is called "multipart/ body. The media type for this purpose is called "multipart/
skipping to change at page 14, line 28 skipping to change at page 15, line 28
Content-range: bytes 7000-7999/8000 Content-range: bytes 7000-7999/8000
...the second range ...the second range
--THIS_STRING_SEPARATES-- --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES--
Notes: Notes:
1. Additional CRLFs may precede the first boundary string in the 1. Additional CRLFs may precede the first boundary string in the
entity. entity.
2. Although RFC 2046 [RFC2046] permits the boundary string to be 2. Although [RFC2046] permits the boundary string to be quoted, some
quoted, some existing implementations handle a quoted boundary existing implementations handle a quoted boundary string
string incorrectly. incorrectly.
3. A number of browsers and servers were coded to an early draft of 3. A number of browsers and servers were coded to an early draft of
the byteranges specification to use a media type of multipart/ the byteranges specification to use a media type of multipart/
x-byteranges, which is almost, but not quite compatible with the x-byteranges, which is almost, but not quite compatible with the
version documented in HTTP/1.1. version documented in HTTP/1.1.
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 2068 Appendix B. Compatibility with Previous Versions
B.1. Changes from RFC 2068
Transfer-coding and message lengths all interact in ways that
required fixing exactly when chunked encoding is used (to allow for
transfer encoding that may not be self delimiting); it was important
to straighten out exactly how message lengths are computed.
(Section 5.2, see also [Part1], [Part3] and [Part6])
There are situations where a server (especially a proxy) does not There are situations where a server (especially a proxy) does not
know the full length of a response but is capable of serving a know the full length of a response but is capable of serving a
byterange request. We therefore need a mechanism to allow byteranges byterange request. We therefore need a mechanism to allow byteranges
with a content-range not indicating the full length of the message. with a content-range not indicating the full length of the message.
(Section 5.2) (Section 5.2)
Range request responses would become very verbose if all meta-data Range request responses would become very verbose if all meta-data
were always returned; by allowing the server to only send needed were always returned; by allowing the server to only send needed
headers in a 206 response, this problem can be avoided. headers in a 206 response, this problem can be avoided. (Section 3.1
and 5.3)
Fix problem with unsatisfiable range requests; there are two cases: Fix problem with unsatisfiable range requests; there are two cases:
syntactic problems, and range doesn't exist in the document. The 416 syntactic problems, and range doesn't exist in the document. The 416
status code was needed to resolve this ambiguity needed to indicate status code was needed to resolve this ambiguity needed to indicate
an error for a byte range request that falls outside of the actual an error for a byte range request that falls outside of the actual
contents of a document. (Section 3.2, 5.2) contents of a document. (Section 3.2, 5.2)
B.2. Changes from RFC 2616
Clarify that it is not ok to use a weak cache validator in a 206
response. (Section 3.1)
Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
C.1. Since RFC2616
Extracted relevant partitions from [RFC2616].
C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-00
Closed issues:
o <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/18>: "Cache
validators in 206 responses"
(<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#ifrange206>)
o <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35>: "Normative
and Informative references"
o <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/86>: "Normative
up-to-date references"
Index Index
2 2
206 Partial Content (status code) 4 206 Partial Content (status code) 5
4 4
416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable (status code) 5 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable (status code) 6
A A
Accept-Ranges header 6 Accept-Ranges header 7
C C
Content-Range header 7 Content-Range header 7
G G
Grammar Grammar
Accept-Ranges 6 Accept-Ranges 7
acceptable-ranges 6 acceptable-ranges 7
byte-content-range-spec 7 byte-content-range-spec 7
byte-range-resp-spec 7 byte-range-resp-spec 7
byte-range-set 10 byte-range-set 10
byte-range-spec 10 byte-range-spec 10
byte-ranges-specifier 10 byte-ranges-specifier 10
bytes-unit 4 bytes-unit 5
Content-Range 7 Content-Range 7
content-range-spec 7 content-range-spec 7
first-byte-pos 10 first-byte-pos 10
If-Range 9 If-Range 10
instance-length 7 instance-length 7
last-byte-pos 10 last-byte-pos 10
other-range-unit 4 other-range-unit 5
Range 11 Range 12
range-unit 4 range-unit 5
ranges-specifier 10 ranges-specifier 10
suffix-byte-range-spec 10 suffix-byte-range-spec 11
suffix-length 10 suffix-length 11
H H
Headers Headers
Accept-Ranges 6 Accept-Ranges 7
Content-Range 7 Content-Range 7
If-Range 9 If-Range 9
Range 9 Range 10
I I
If-Range header 9 If-Range header 9
M M
Media Type Media Type
multipart/byteranges 13 multipart/byteranges 14
multipart/x-byteranges 14 multipart/x-byteranges 15
multipart/byteranges Media Type 13 multipart/byteranges Media Type 14
multipart/x-byteranges Media Type 14 multipart/x-byteranges Media Type 15
R R
Range header 9 Range header 10
S S
Status Codes Status Codes
206 Partial Content 4 206 Partial Content 5
416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable 5 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable 6
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Roy T. Fielding (editor) Roy T. Fielding (editor)
Day Software Day Software
23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280 23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660
USA USA
Phone: +1-949-706-5300 Phone: +1-949-706-5300
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 31
World Wide Web Consortium World Wide Web Consortium
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
The Stata Center, Building 32 The Stata Center, Building 32
32 Vassar Street 32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA 02139 Cambridge, MA 02139
USA USA
Email: timbl@w3.org Email: timbl@w3.org
URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/
Yves Lafon (editor)
World Wide Web Consortium
W3C / ERCIM
2004, rte des Lucioles
Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902
France
Email: ylafon@w3.org
URI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/
Julian F. Reschke (editor)
greenbytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16
Muenster, NW 48155
Germany
Phone: +49 251 2807760
Fax: +49 251 2807761
Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 End of changes. 47 change blocks. 
101 lines changed or deleted 212 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/