13.01.2017 13:29, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 13 Jan 2017, at 09:48, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@...2319...> wrote: 12.01.2017 16:11, Alex Bligh wrote:On 12 Jan 2017, at 07:05, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@...2319...> wrote: Yes this is better. But is it actually needed to force contexts have some safe default? If context wants it may define such default without this requirement.. So, should it be requirement at all?I've changed this to: of the file), a server MAY reply with a single block status descriptor with *length* matching the requested length, rather than reporting the error; in this case the context MAY mandate the status returned.Hmm, I don't understand. So, it MAY mandate and therefore MAY NOT do it? And what client should think, if server replies with one chunk matching the request length and not mandate the status?Some contexts may mandate a particular value (so for instance the allocation context might mandate 0). Some contexts may not mandate a particular value, in which case the interpretation is dependent upon the context (just like any other status value). EG a context which returned an status of 7 if the range contained a prime number, and else 3, could carry on doing that. As it doesn't make sense to interpret status returns without an understanding of the particular context, we might as well simply extend this to 'beyond the range' returns - as I think you pointed out!
>>> The status flags are intentionally defined so that a server MAY always safely report a status of 0 for any block
- Actually, status flags are _not_ defined. (each context defines it's own status flags)
-- Best regards, Vladimir