W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p1: BWS

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:24:12 +0200
Message-ID: <516F918C.4070702@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-04-18 08:02, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> ...
> Agreed, but on the other hand, requiring that some intermediaries that do
> not even use these fields to fix them can increase the risk of breaking
> something between the client and the server. And since many of them will
> not do it anyway, we'll end up with another MUST that is not respected,
> so probably a SHOULD would be more appropriate ?
> ...

That's my concern as well.

My gut feeling is that we want BWS to be fixed during the message 
parsing, but not necessarily during the field value parsing.

We probably can fix that in prose (preferred). Alternatively, we could 
add yet another ABNF rule (this might negatively affect a few specs in 
the RFC Editor Queue, though).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 06:24:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC