- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:53:45 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 27.02.2023 14:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > Julian Reschke writes: > >> > If parsing fails -- including when calling another algorithm -- the >> entire field value MUST be ignored (i.e., treated as if the field were >> not present in the section), or alternatively the complete HTTP message >> MUST be treated as malformed. This is intentionally strict, to improve >> interoperability and safety, and specifications referencing this >> document are not allowed to loosen this requirement. > > Works for me. > > Although I still question the performative power of "not allowed to" > vs. a real SHALL NOT ? I guess that's a question of whether we want to reserve BCP14 keywords on actual protocol requirements as opposed to rules for other specs (and yes, there's a grey area here). > If we adopt this form, it should be up front in 1.1 where we talk > about strictness. > > Nitpicking: > > "-- including when calling another algorithm -- " My reading is that this refers to the other "modules" of this algorithm, but yes, maybe that can be misinterpreted. > seems a confusing way to needlessly repeat what 1.1 says more clearly: > > This specification intentionally defines strict parsing and > serialization behaviors using step-by-step algorithms; the only error > handling defined is to fail the operation altogether. > > And inserting "entire" before "operation" would make that even clearer. +1 Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 27 February 2023 13:53:59 UTC