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: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 18:29:49 +0200
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20180514162949.GC23280@1wt.eu>
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 03:35:22PM +0900, Kazuho Oku wrote:
> Maybe I am missing some context, but the question here (for SH) seems
> to me that how we should carry a boolean flag.

Absolutely agreed.

> I think that there could be two ways:
> 1. use the existence of the header as the flag, as Early-Data draft does
> 2. always require the header to carry a boolean value
> 
> I do not mind whichever we choose, but I would prefer having one way
> of doing that defined in SH.

I *tend* to think that being a bit stricter (ie value must match) is better
for the long term : over time we've seen many times a boolean become an enum
and that becomes a problem because anyone sends anything if the presence only
suffices. By enforcing strictness (400 bad req if doesn't match) we reserve
all unspecified values for later use if required.

Willy
Received on Monday, 14 May 2018 16:30:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:21 UTC