- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 20:10:34 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 2:38 PM Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > 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. > I think so as well. Quoting: "header field authors are encouraged to clearly state additional constraints upon the syntax, as well as the consequences when those constraints are violated" It seems to me like we've done that. Note that we're suggesting a contradictions with this though: "If parsing fails – including when calling another algorithm – the entire header field’s value MUST be discarded." And I'm OK with that in this case. Were we to cite structured headers, we would probably want to call out that direct contravention.
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2018 10:11:07 UTC