- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:24:12 +0200
- 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