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

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