Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-rfc54987bis

On 1/04/2015 7:25 a.m., Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:40:36PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> --------
>> In message <1C7436D4-D1EF-454C-BC14-E8C00165AA2E@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
>> tes:
>>
>>> We discussed this document in Dallas:
>>>  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-rfc5987bis>
>>>
>>> Based on the feedback received, I believe that we should adopt this
>>> document as a WG product, with a target of Proposed Standard.
>>
>> Solving the problem:  Yes, good idea.
>>
>> "Solving" it this way:  Bad idea.
>>
>> First, we're worried about transmission times for HTTP so making
>> the charset selection per header-subfield is a horribly inefficient
>> way to solve the problem.
> 
> I think it still makes sense because some intermediaries could be each
> adding one header field and it would really not be handy for them to
> have to lookup a certain header to know what format to emit theirs.
> However, maybe per-header could be enough. But I guess Julian wanted
> to ensure that interoperability is the least possibly impacted, which
> probably starts by not mangling the header value before the semi-colon
> for cases which already work and whose encoding is "implicit".
> 
>> Second, do we really want to make it possible to have one subfield
>> of a header be KOIR8 and the next subfield be codepage 1251 ?
> 
> I think that's a legitimate question.
> 
>> Third, are there *any* valid reasons to even allow other charsets
>> than ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8 from 2015 forward ?
> 
> Idem. And if we don't need to do more than that, then probably we
> just need a boolean to say "this is not ISO-8859-1, hence this is
> UTF-8" and make the encoding implicit by the sole presence of the
> encoding tag (eg: the "*" or "=", I don't remember right now).
> 
> Best regards,
> Willy
> 
> 

That sound better to me.

Amos

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 01:18:45 UTC