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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:48:38 +1100
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <87E02B20-BB19-4933-A6E5-9839F31A8D4B@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> On 11 Jan 2016, at 2:40 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> 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"?

That seems reasonable...


> Or do we want to change it to %s"t" (for "true")?

That's a breaking syntactic change at a very late stage; what benefit does it have?



--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 04:49:10 UTC

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