Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> * Adam Barth wrote:
>>Right, this document is useful to folks who would like to generate
>>this header.  It's a generative profile.  As such, its a profile for
>>servers.  I'm just asking that the document be upfront about that.
>>
>>One the other hand, this document isn't very helpful to folks who
>>would like to consume these headers.  Consumers will likely need to
>>implement the full protocol, not just the well-behaved profile.  As
>>such, we're still missing a specification for what user agents should
>>do with these headers, which is one reason we have the
>>interoperability problems Bjoern points out.
>
> The goal is that authors can successfully suggest file names for and
> treatment of entities that users may wish to download. That requires
> that "servers" and "consumers" agree on a protocol to accomplish that.
> The draft defines such a protocol, allowing for interoperability be-
> tween "servers" and "consumers". This is about making stuff work, not
> about cleaning up the mess browser vendors have created by arbitrarily
> extending the protocol because they are not familiar with the concept
> of input validation. That the draft does not try to fuse half a dozen
> of differently broken implementations into a novel format for the
> header that has only a small chance of being adopted properly does not
> mean the protocol specification is for servers only.

Insulting an important constituency is unlikely to generate consensus
by win that constituency over to your point of view.

Adam