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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 09:27:37 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
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: <f4961301-4d6e-ce40-7910-3772f832b670@gmx.de>
On 2018-05-15 09:19, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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")
> ...

"single field value" vs "aggregated field value"?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 07:28:44 UTC

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