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: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:05:41 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56935445.7020903@gmx.de>
On 2016-01-11 05:48, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 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?

The intent was to have a more readable value. Are there any 
implementations out there this would break?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 07:06:16 UTC

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