- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:36:37 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2013-11-14 22:26, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> Hi Julian, >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:18:23PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 2013-11-14 13:31, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> Agreed. >>>> >>>> This is the only current issue that holds up draft -25. If no further >>>> information comes up, I'll apply this change (unless Roy beats me to >>>> it), and submit -25 over the weekend. >>>> >>>> Best regards, Julian >>> >>> Proposed patch: >>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/512/512.diff> >> >> "A recipient parsing a delta-seconds value ought to use an arithmetic type >> of at least 32 bits of signed integer range." >> ^^^^^^ >> You meant unsigned, right ? Because the value 2147483648 requires at least >> 32 bits unsigned or 33 bits signed, but 32 bits signed never satisfies this >> requirement. > > The proposed text is: > >> A recipient parsing a delta-seconds value ought to use an >> arithmetic type of at least 32 bits of signed integer range. > > That is consistent with the previous requirement of "MUST use an arithmetic type of at least 31 bits of range", no? Yes, but I feel for Willy's desire to get rid of the apparent contradiction altogether ... but not that much. I suggest we use the original 31 bits of range, remind folks that it is unsigned, and explain that the 2147483648 can be used as a canned numeric string on overflow even if they happen to be forced to use a signed 32bit storage. *sigh* ....Roy
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 07:37:02 UTC