Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)

On 04/15/2016 01:53 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:19:40AM -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 04/14/2016 10:49 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 06:50:43PM -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>>> On 04/14/2016 04:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>>> Don't confuse the various lenient ways in which implementations parse
>>>>> HTTP with the requirements on generating HTTP messages that are
>>>>> defined by the ABNF. The ABNF is intended to be more restrictive.

>>>> I fully agree, but we are not discussing ABNF creation IMO. We are
>>>> discussing a syntax change by an HTTPbis RFC. To change HTTP/1 syntax
>>>> that has been in use for many years, the "Founders Intent" alone is not
>>>> enough IMHO. There must be other compelling reasons. The only other
>>>> reason given so far was "lack of known examples", followed by your
>>>> discussion of "space padding" as a known usage example. I expect the bar
>>>> for HTTP/1 syntax change to be significantly higher.

> The way I read your comment makes me think you believe that there was
> an intent to purposely break existing implementations,

Just to avoid misunderstanding: I may be wrong, but I am not that dumb.
The "Founders Intent" phrase refers to Question #1 in Roy's history: Did
the authors intend to apply the "implied *LWS" rule to chunking? The
answer was "No, there was no such intent". AFAICT, that lack of intent
was used as the first reason to remove LWS, and I acknowledged that in
the above paragraph while claiming that reason #1 alone is not enough to
justify keeping the syntax as it is now.

I am now deleting most of my long response because I eventually realized
that you were just defending the way HTTPbis decisions were made. I was
_not_ attacking that (and understand the complexities of that process).

> Absolutely. It's too bad it was not identified by then, but we can circle
> in loops forever asking why is was not identified instead of proposing a
> solution. 

We might, but I am not asking that question and am proposing a solution.

> Your proposal might be fine, and maybe in 2 years we'll get
> another report for it not being enough and another errata will simply be
> emitted. That's the purpose of erratas.



Received on Friday, 15 April 2016 23:51:08 UTC