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 09:28:52 +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: <569367C4.3030604@gmx.de>
On 2016-01-11 08:05, Julian Reschke 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...
> Ack.
> ...


Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 08:29:27 UTC

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