Re: Multiple header fields with the same field name - unwritten assumption about quoted commas in values? from Nico Williams on 2013-01-16 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2013)

From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:54:37 -0600
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Piotr Dobrogost <p@ietf.dobrogost.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOg4PRhT-NzrkQfdL2-hRuhBktYag1C4jL09KAPogG1Qig@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Obviously and the issue is the same with many headers. I was just explaining
> that this is an example of a *non-compliant* input which is then turned into
> a different non-compliant output by a middlebox. The problem clearly is with
> the input and not with the operation performed by the middlebox. So we could
> recommend middlebox authors against merging the headers because it's hard to
> do it right, but we have no reason to add a SHOULD NOT which would turn some
> existing implementations to non-compliant for no reason.

SHOULD NOT does not do that.  MUST NOT would.

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 19:55:01 UTC