- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 19:49:14 +1100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 03/12/2011, at 5:53 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > The issue I have with this is that for me, violating the spec simply implies > not doing a MUST or doing a MUST NOT. There are a huge number of such rules > in the spec, many of them irrelevant to most proxies. And by ignoring these > rules, the proxies will violate the spec by forwarding wrong contents. Your > example of the Date header is perfect. It's a general header with a MUST for > the format, still a number of proxies don't care about it and will not check > it. By forwarding a wrong one, they will violate the spec. This is a good point. I think we can address this by changing this in the sections on conformance (one per draft, IIRC): > This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements > (Section 1.2). In addition to the prose requirements placed upon > them, Senders MUST NOT generate protocol elements that are invalid. to something like: > This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements > (Section 1.2). In addition to the prose requirements placed upon > them, Senders MUST NOT generate protocol elements that are invalid, > unless the element is out of their control (such as a header generated by > an upstream sender), in which case they MAY attempt to correct > the syntax before sending. Thoughts? We'd still have the option of making specific exceptions where we require generation to be conformant (e.g., when there are security implications). -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 08:49:42 UTC