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. Regards, > 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