>Number: 2107
>Category: protocol
>Synopsis: Additional arguments for fixing PR#1464 ("Range: 0-" bug)
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: apache
>State: open
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: apache
>Arrival-Date: Tue Apr 21 14:40:01 PDT 1998
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Organization:
apache
>Release: 1.3b6
>Environment:
Any
>Description:
This PR continues PR#1464 since I don't know how to reply to original PR.
I also agree that Apache must be fixed to return 206 instead of 200, reasons
are:
1) All HTTP/1.1 compatible servers excepting Apache do it.
2) All transfer tools which are able to do reget (like GetRight, ReGet and many
others)
expect 206 as result for "Range: 0-", not 200.
3) RFC 2068 eslecially points that the server MUST return 206 for ANY Range:
request.
In the reply to PR#1464 I see the point that remote soft can determine reget
ability
using "Accept-ranges" header, but it require yet one additional and totally
unneded transfer request
just for "Accept-ranges", while with 206 return code remote soft can determine
reget ability in ONE
initial request using "Range: 0-".
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
Return 206 code as standards and common practice says
%0
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ]
[you need to include <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the Cc line ]
[and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done]
[automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ]
