W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2018

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6266 (5383)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:52:21 +0200
To: Magnar Myrtveit <magnar@myrtveit.com>
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, pmcmanus@mozilla.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <fbc07ded-6b72-ede7-d3a1-38cadfa51935@greenbytes.de>
On 2018-06-12 15:48, Magnar Myrtveit wrote:
> Thanks for your reply, Julian.
> 
> I agree with both of your reasons, but I still don't think the erratum 
> should be rejected. For example when creating a parser for the 
> Content-Disposition header field, it is important to know what one can 
> expect. Currently, one cannot assume an ext-value to follow ext-token 
> "=". It might just as well be a value. My guess is that this is not the 
> intention, and it makes creating future-proof parsers harder. Having a 
> validated erratum clarifying the issue would be nice.

Well, in general you can't assume that. The extended syntax is currently 
defined only for "filename", and any new parameter using the extended 
syntax would need to be defined in a document extending RFC 6266. So 
yes, you can't handle parameters in a generic way which haven't been 
defined yet.

> By the way, you may update the erratum field "Name" to "Magnar Ovedal 
> Myrtveit". I mistook it as erratum title, rather than my own name :)

The RFC-Editor might be able to do that.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 13:52:49 UTC

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