W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:47:43 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111207094743.GA20531@1wt.eu>
Hi Mark,

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 07:49:14PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> 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).

That's perfect in my opinion! I really like this approach, as it will imply
that proxies will have much less excuses for not respecting the rules. It
will make it easier to insist on what is important.

Thanks!
Willy
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 09:48:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT