- From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:45:23 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct@ietf.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 9/13/18 6:23 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 9/13/2018 8:54 AM, Adam Roach wrote: >> ... > ยง2.1: >> >>> Expect-CT = #expect-ct-directive >>> expect-ct-directive = directive-name [ "=" directive-value ] >>> directive-name = token >>> directive-value = token / quoted-string >> >> I note that there is no registry for directive names in the IANA >> section, so >> presumably there is a small, closed set of directives allowed here. >> Typically, >> when this is the case, the ABNF includes the permissible values; e.g.: >> >> directive-name = "report-uri" / "enforce" / "max-age" >> >> ...although I also note that list item (5) under the ABNF implies >> that the >> intention here is to be extensible. If such is the case, I would suggest >> adding an IANA registry that records Expect-CT directives, and >> specifying the >> ABNF as: >> >> directive-name = "report-uri" / "enforce" / "max-age" / token >> ... > > Disagreed. We have stopped doing this in the HTTP specs for a reason - > it conflates two different thing: parsing, and detecting certain > predefined tokens. Thanks. If HTTP-related RFCs do this consistently, then I agree that you should keep with that convention. /a
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:46:08 UTC