W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2017

Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-structured-headers-00.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:25:20 +1100
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F23D051D-CE3D-445F-95DF-021917DA10D0@mnot.net>
To: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
On 31 Oct 2017, at 4:36 am, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> wrote:
> 
> I'll ask about two more things:  
> 1) being able to separate standard headers from user-defined metadata .. now that we have a convention for "value" types

I think that would have to be done in a new version of HTTP itself, not by a convention that's adopted header-by-header. I also suspect it would be difficult to introduce.

Do we have a crisp idea of what 'user' is vs. 'standard'?


> 2) a (simple) binary representation for the structure ... has it been discussed?

Not yet, but it's in mind. Negotiating for its use would require either a new version of HTTP, or maybe an extension (although there'd be some non-optimal behaviour in the first RT).

Cheers,



> 
> Limits are useful for standard headers..
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 07:08:49AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > --------
> > In message <20171030060251.GB28950@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
> > >On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 02:38:19PM +0900, Kazuho Oku wrote:
> >
> > >Instead I think that explaining very common implementation limits to be
> > >expected in field (eg: 2^31-1, 2^32-1 and 2^63-1 for integers) would
> > >help implementors decide what to support and what not. Ie if it's not
> > >harder to support 2^63 than 2^32 for integers, better do it.
> >
> > ... unless your programming language thinks all numbers are
> > floating-point.
> >
> > The 15 digit limit is to make sure that numbers will not loose
> > precision in a floating-point double, while still being sufficiently
> > large for any byte-count a HTTP header can expect to ever see.
> 
> That's still perfectly compatible with what I'm saying indeed, just
> taking other possible implementation limits in consideration that I
> didn't think about!
> 
> Willy
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 30 October 2017 23:25:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 November 2017 00:14:14 UTC