W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2018

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-replay-03, "5.1. The Early-Data Header Field"

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 12:41:25 +1000
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2563294F-26A8-4BB1-8717-0C57AD13D7E9@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
This sounds like a fine resolution.

Just to make sure that Structured Headers is fit for purpose (i.e., not trying to get adoption here!), *if* this header were based upon SH, would its current design be adequate?

I think so, just want to make sure.


> On 12 May 2018, at 3:00 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:44:08AM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> We're already saying this about invalid constructions:
>> The Early-Data header field carries a single bit of information and clients
>> MUST include at most one instance. Multiple instances MUST be treated as
>> equivalent to a single instance by a server.
>> Why not go all out?
>> Multiple or invalid instances of the header field MUST be treated as
>> equivalent to a single instance with a value of 1 by a server.
> That sounds perfect to me and allows us to extend it in the future if we
> feel like we need it.
> +1
> Willy

Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2018 02:41:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:59 UTC