- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:26:46 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Sigh.. ok, how about the part about limiting header field name length to <= 0xFF? On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > I'd be really, really wary of this. They may not be standard or common, but I've seen many headers that exercise the stranger characters available, and having them break in HTTP/2 would not be good. > > Cheers, > > > On 26/02/2013, at 2:58 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Could we get away with redefining this as simply... >> >> "-" / "." / "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA >> >> With an 8-bit length restriction? (That is, length represent by a single unsigned byte) >> >> Given all evidence of current practice, these constraints appear quite reasonable. >> On Feb 25, 2013 2:36 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> Right now, the syntax is: >> >> header-field = field-name ":" OWS field-value BWS >> field-name = token >> token = 1*tchar >> tchar = "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "*" >> / "+" / "-" / "." / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~" >> / DIGIT / ALPHA ; any VCHAR, except special >> >> >> >> On 25/02/2013, at 7:57 PM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: >> >> > Hello Roberto, >> > >> > What do you mean with "header key"? Do you mean header field names? E.g. the "Host" in the host header (field), and so on? >> > >> > In that case, I agree. Please note that [RFC5322] allows all US-ASCII printable characters except ":" in optional header field names (Section 3.6.8). I had to learn this (and the "header field", "header field name",... terminology) while working on RFC 6068. >> > >> > I'm not sure this also applies to HTTP, but it may as well do so. Of course, a header field name like "^$&%*@(!]" really makes no sense at all, but that's a separate issue. >> > >> > Regards, Martin. >> > >> > On 2013/02/20 5:45, Roberto Peon wrote: >> >> Right now I believe we allow a wider encoding for HTTP keys than is >> >> necessary. >> >> >> >> Does anyone know of any non-crazy use for character values> 127 in the >> >> header keys (because I really can't think of any)? >> >> >> >> -=R >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > >
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 23:27:34 UTC