W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: ABNF related feedback to: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:40:25 +0100
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56927B69.6000504@gmx.de>
On 2015-12-31 18:54, Mike Bishop wrote:
> "persist" could as easily be a toggle; either present or not, no value.  However, the existing syntax doesn't permit that, so we defined it to be =1.  In this situation, I don't see a problem with hard-coding the value into the syntax.
>
> Fundamentally, the question is, "If I see persist=2, what should I do with it?"  If I treat it as an unrecognized value, then it's equivalent to not being present, which may or may not be what the sender wanted.  That means whoever is defining persist=2 would probably have done better to define morerefinedpersist=1-4, and leave persist intact for legacy clients to understand.
>
> If you're going to have to define a new token for other values to be useful anyway, let's formalize that and hard-code that there's only one acceptable value for this one.

Sounds right to me.

Any objections to changing this to simply "1"? Or do we want to change 
it to %s"t" (for "true")?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 10 January 2016 15:40:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:10 UTC