Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01.txt> (CDN Loop Prevention) to Proposed Standard

> On Dec 4, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

In fact, RFC 7322 actually includes both styles of section reference:

Status of This Memo

  ...  see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

4.8.4.  Internationalization Considerations Section

   ... see "IETF Policy on Character Sets
   and Languages" [BCP18], Section 6, for more information.

—Tommy
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2018 09:39:49 UTC