Lucas Pardue

RESUMABLE: use of 204 (No Content) is surprising wrt HEAD

4

During WGLC review, @MikeBishop raised the following issue on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0123.html > The use of 204 (No Content) surprises me, because the upload resource inherently does have content -- the bytes...

RESUMABLE: Section 4.2 should describe what happens with GET requests to the request resource

1

During WGLC review, @MikeBishop raised the following issue on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0123.html > Relatedly, Section 4.2 should describe what happens with GET requests to the request resource. Even if they're not needed...

RESUMABLE: Section 4.1.4 seems misplaced

2

During WGLC review, @MikeBishop raised the following issue on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0123.html > Most of Section 4.1.4 seems misplaced. Other than max-age, these are not limits of a particular upload resource (the...

RESUMABLE: it might be reasonable for the client to require that the offset be no less than the last Upload-Offset

2

During WGLC review, @MikeBishop raised the following issue on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0123.html > In 4.3.1, it might be reasonable for the client to require that the offset be no less than the...

During WGLC review, @MikeBishop raise the folloing issue on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0123.html > References are made to the "server's" support for resumable uploads, but depending on how the server is architected, different...

During WGLC review, @MikeBishop raise the folloing issue on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0123.html > Given the nature of delivery and buffers as connections are being dropped, it might be more accurate to say...

RESUMABLE: Section 10.1 description of how to use Repr-Digest seems wrong

2

During WGLC review, @MikeBishop raised the following issue on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0123.html > In Section 10.1, regarding integrity verification, could Repr-Digest also be on the HEAD of the upload resource? However, looking...

RESUMABLE: consider splitting some text out Section 4.4 (append) to keep focus on interim exchanges

1

During WGLC review, @MikeBishop raised the following issue on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0123.html > You might consider splitting out part of 4.4 (Append) to a new Upload Completion section, so that 4.4 can...

RESUMABLE: stopping a request in mid-transfer has some version-specific complexities

1

During WGLC review, @MikeBishop raised the following issue on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0123.html > In 4.2.1, stopping a request in mid-transfer has some version-specific complexities. See in particular this recent thread on the...

RESUMABLE: proposed rename section headers discussing state concepts

1

@gstrauss provided the following feedback on https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JulSep/0094.html wrt Section 4.1 > These headings are misnamed > * 4.1.1 Offset -> Upload-Offset > * 4.1.2 Completeness -> Upload-Complete > * 4.1.3...