- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:31:06 +1100
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Yeah, personally I'd agree that 32 bits is a bit much... http://http2.github.com/http2-spec/#HeaderBlock Say, 8 bits? (opening as <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/41>) On 26/02/2013, at 10:26 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > 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/ >> >> >> -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 23:31:35 UTC