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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:19:15 +1000
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F5275938-5933-4E44-8BBA-7A15EF16E747@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


> On 15 May 2018, at 5:13 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 2018-05-15 09:03, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 15 May 2018, at 5:00 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2018-05-15 07:42, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> SH doesn't allow empty header fields, FWIW.
>>>> ...
>>> 
>>> ...which makes it incompatible with the list rule in RFC 7230, no?
>> In what sense?
> 
> Because it says, that if you header is defined as
> 
>  #token
> 
> you can send
> 
>  Foo: a
>  Foo:
>  Foo: b
> 
> and it would be equivalent to
> 
>  Foo: a, b

Ah. 

I didn't mean "empty header fields" in that sense -- rather, just

Foo:

(we REALLY need some terminology to cleanly differentiate between the various senses of "header")

That said, SH doesn't allow that either, or:

Foo: a,,b




--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 07:19:44 UTC

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