W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: chunk-extensions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 16:01:01 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8B15E70C-0B4F-4F2F-865A-FD533D3206CE@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 15/09/2013, at 1:56 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-09-14 01:54, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I've considered using them for a few things over the years. However, two things always stopped me; they aren't accommodated by Apis, and they aren't guaranteed to transit a hop.
>> For the breach attacks, I don't think deprecating them harms things, since you can still sen them; in these mitigations, the payload / semantics don't matter, as long as something is there.
> You can send them, but you'd violate a "SHOULD NOT".
> If we believe using them is ok (and you made it sound like that), we consequently should back out the change to deprecate it (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1535#file1>)
>> Personally, I'm ok either way; the important thing is to document their behavior / limitations. Deprecation I one way to do that, but we could do it in prose too.
>> ...
> What exactly does not to be documented?

Assuming s/not/need/

Document that they may not be persisted beyond a, because chunking (and therefore extensions) don't have any semantic in the message itself. Furthermore, that they're not available in most implementations.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2013 06:01:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC