- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 06:44:16 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
On 2018-12-04 23:21, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
>> On 3 Dec 2018, at 1:51 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> s/[RFC7230], Section 5.7.1/Section 5.7.1 of [RFC7230]/
>>
>>> "tracking message forwards, avoiding request loops, and identifying
>>> the protocol capabilities of senders along the request/response
>>> chain."
>>> In theory, Via could be used to identify these loops. However, in
>>> practice it is not used in this fashion, because some HTTP servers
>>> use Via for other purposes - in particular, some implementations
>>> disable some HTTP/1.1 features when the Via header is present.
>>
>> It would be nice if this came with pointers to related bug reports so the reader could have a glance.
>>
>>> 2. The CDN-Loop Request Header Field
>>> CDN-Loop: FooCDN, barcdn; host="foo123.bar.cdn"
>>> CDN-Loop: baz-cdn; abc="123"; def="456", anotherCDN
>>> Note that the token syntax does not allow whitespace, DQUOTE or any
>>> of the characters "(),/:;<=>?@[]{}". See [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6.
>>
>> s/. See [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6./([RFC7230], Section 3.2.6)./
>>
>>> Likewise, note the rules for when parameter values need to be quoted
>>> in [RFC7231], Section 3.1.1.
>>
>> s/[RFC7231], Section 3.1.1/Section 3.1.1 of [RFC7231]/
>
> Is this just personal preference, or is there a reason you suggest this form? I see nothing about it in RFC7322.
In this case it was a personal preference, but note that just because
multiple forms are blessed, they work equally well everywhere...
Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2018 05:45:00 UTC