fre 2010-04-09 klockan 12:29 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
> I though Squid considered it a malformed 206 and uncachabled it.
It's not a 206 response. Not that it really differs a lot..
> Does squid consider the reply a malformed 206 or a malformed 200?
> The extra bytes which exist in the body means we should be assuming its
> a malformed 200 with unusable range headers.
Yes. If there is more data than Content-Length indicates then the
response is malformed and should not get cached.
> Server may or may not provide a real range or this same output.
And we don't know.
> Regardless of that any client being smart and fetching the request as a
> range of the indicated range bytes from a full copy of the object will
> get different bytes from any intermediary than this reply contains.
You mean from this unexpectedly ranged object, or from the object
without fs= parameter?
Range requests on the object without fs= parameter is just as normal.
Nothing strange to discuss there. Any differences in the object data in
Ranged responses with an fs= parameter is irrelevant to that object.
We don't know how the server would react on Range requests to this
ranged fs=.. object. Maybe it imlpements them, maybe it don't.
You are very right that the likelyhood that any intermediary caches
(i.e. squid etc) caching this unexpectedly ranged response MAY react
strangely to Range requests on the same.
Regards
Henrik
Received on Fri Apr 09 2010 - 11:06:18 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Apr 11 2010 - 12:00:03 MDT