- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 12:16:57 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- 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 08:10:34PM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote: > 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." Indeed, this rule may have some nasty side effects if it causes the loss of a header field serving as a signal. > 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. I agree. Willy
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2018 10:17:29 UTC