{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remotestorage/spec/issues/124","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remotestorage/spec/issues/124/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remotestorage/spec/issues/124/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remotestorage/spec/issues/124/events","html_url":"https://github.com/remotestorage/spec/issues/124","id":119050821,"number":124,"title":"Optionally support byte ranges support on PUT requests.","user":{"login":"michielbdejong","id":408412,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/408412?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong","html_url":"https://github.com/michielbdejong","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michielbdejong/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":13,"created_at":"2015-11-26T14:01:05Z","updated_at":"2015-11-26T19:49:59Z","closed_at":null,"body":"In specs 02 and 03 we had the option to announce support for byte ranges on GET requests through WebFinger.\r\n\r\nIn spec 06 we're moving this to the `Accept-Ranges` response header, to better comply with HTTP.\r\n\r\nFor GET requests this is fine, since a client can just try, and get the whole resource if its request header was ignored. For PUT requests this is a bit more complicated (also, how would you announce \"supported for GET but not for PUT\" in an OPTIONS response?).\r\n\r\nSo we should see if we can find a better way to announce byte range support for GET / PUT / both / none."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remotestorage/spec/issues/comments/159985562","html_url":"https://github.com/remotestorage/spec/issues/124#issuecomment-159985562","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remotestorage/spec/issues/124","id":159985562,"user":{"login":"untitaker","id":837573,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/837573?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker","html_url":"https://github.com/untitaker","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/untitaker/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-11-26T19:49:59Z","updated_at":"2015-11-26T19:49:59Z","body":"And then, [Mark Nottingham himself says that Content-Range is not valid in requests](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/716680/difference-between-content-range-and-range-headers#comment23019548_6711496). So I guess that the Google Drive devs have exploited a loophole in RFC 2616 to implement a very useful feature. I'm saying loophole here because the definition of Content-Range in RFC 2616 doesn't seem to talk about it being a request header either."}}