`Cotent-Range` and `Range` syntax expected by this spec deviates from RFC 7233 (HTTP/1.1 Range Requests)

[lpotthast]

In the OCI spec, the Content-Range header is specified as:

Content-Range: <range>

where <range> must match the pattern ^[0-9]+-[0-9]+$ (e.g., "0-1023").

However, RFC 7233 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7233) defines the Content-Range header syntax as:

Content-Range: <unit> <range-resp>/<size>

For byte ranges, this could be:

Content-Range: bytes 0-1023/2048

or

Content-Range: bytes 0-1023/*

This OCI spec omits both:

• The unit specifier ("bytes") and
• The total size or "*" after the slash

This inconsistency causes interoperability issues with HTTP libraries and proxies that strictly validate header formats according to RFC specifications. For example, Rust's https://crates.io/crates/headers crate.

The same applies to the Range header. Although the Range header uses slightly different syntax. Also see the syntax block in:

• https://developer.mozilla.org/de/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/Content-Range
• https://developer.mozilla.org/de/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/Range

This spec should either:

• Make explicit that it uses the standard HTTP headers with non-conforming syntax requirement, where custom validation and parsing must be implemented or
• Use a new oci-dsitribution spec specific header name to which the current requirements can be applied or
• Update the spec to require HTTP RFC compliant values (and update the conformance tests with it)

[sudo-bmitch]

This spec should either:

• Make explicit that it uses the standard HTTP headers with non-conforming syntax requirement, where custom validation and parsing must be implemented or

I believe the spec makes it clear how the range headers are used. Is there wording you want to add to make this more explicit?

• Use a new oci-dsitribution spec specific header name to which the current requirements can be applied or

• Update the spec to require HTTP RFC compliant values (and update the conformance tests with it)

I don't think either of these are options we can consider. There are existing clients and servers that would be broken if we did either option. Doing either would require a major version change, so I can add it to the 2.x milestone, but doubt we'll see progress there any time soon.

[ApochiOchi]

Good job 👏