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: Tue, 15 May 2018 11:28:28 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20180515092828.GA23881@1wt.eu>
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 05:19:15PM +1000, 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:

FWIW I've used many times "Host:" with no name when connecting to an
HTTP/1.1 server without knowing its name, and rarely faced any issue
with this. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that many
implementations support an empty header field and distinguish it from
an absent one.

Willy
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 09:29:06 UTC

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