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

Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:22:55 +0800
Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <121A7A99-A03E-484D-850F-460481C84E90@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Needless to say, Iím +1 on this.

Cheers,


On 15 Nov 2013, at 4:16 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> (replying to your two e-mails at once, I'm in a hurry and late)
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:36:37PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> That is consistent with the previous requirement of "MUST use an arithmetic type of at least 31 bits of range", no?
>> 
>> Yes, but I feel for Willy's desire to get rid of the apparent
>> contradiction altogether ... but not that much.
>> 
>> I suggest we use the original 31 bits of range, remind folks that
>> it is unsigned, and explain that the 2147483648 can be used as a
>> canned numeric string on overflow even if they happen to be forced
>> to use a signed 32bit storage.  *sigh*
> 
> Seems reasonable eventhough not looking nice.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:40:34AM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Is there a reason for this type to be signed ?
>> 
>> a) It's been implicitly like that before.
> 
> OK
> 
>> b) Java, for instance, doesn't have unsigned integers.
> 
> OK I didn't know.
> 
>> Of course we can add even more prose or even pseudo-code, and also 
>> warnings about broken language libraries. But does this edge case 
>> *really* require this?
> 
> In fact it's not that much of an edge case if we suggest that a
> specific value has a special meaning, because that specific value
> will be hard-coded in some senders, making it less of an edge case
> and causing interop issues with the receivers which will read -1 or
> 0 there.
> 
>> Can we please
>> 
>> 1) focus on whether this is an improvement over RFC 2616, addressing te 
>> LC comment, and/or
>> 
>> 2) propose concrete changes?
> 
> Probably that Roy's right. After all, if this is a specific value
> then it makes sense to warn the developer about the fact he might
> need to read the man or use strcmp(!).
> 
> Best regards,
> Willy
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 08:23:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC