- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:21:03 +1100
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Hi Julian,
> On 3 Dec 2018, at 1:51 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> s/[RFC7230], Section 5.7.1/Section 5.7.1 of [RFC7230]/
>
>> "tracking message forwards, avoiding request loops, and identifying
>> the protocol capabilities of senders along the request/response
>> chain."
>> In theory, Via could be used to identify these loops. However, in
>> practice it is not used in this fashion, because some HTTP servers
>> use Via for other purposes - in particular, some implementations
>> disable some HTTP/1.1 features when the Via header is present.
>
> It would be nice if this came with pointers to related bug reports so the reader could have a glance.
>
>> 2. The CDN-Loop Request Header Field
>> CDN-Loop: FooCDN, barcdn; host="foo123.bar.cdn"
>> CDN-Loop: baz-cdn; abc="123"; def="456", anotherCDN
>> Note that the token syntax does not allow whitespace, DQUOTE or any
>> of the characters "(),/:;<=>?@[]{}". See [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6.
>
> s/. See [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6./([RFC7230], Section 3.2.6)./
>
>> Likewise, note the rules for when parameter values need to be quoted
>> in [RFC7231], Section 3.1.1.
>
> s/[RFC7231], Section 3.1.1/Section 3.1.1 of [RFC7231]/
Is this just personal preference, or is there a reason you suggest this form? I see nothing about it in RFC7322.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2018 22:21:53 UTC