- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 19:01:09 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-------- In message <4d86289c-26fb-5add-5734-f4aff8cdb7fd@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes : >> If a documented use case appears and a concensus for how to meet >> its needs can be found, publishing a SHbis will not hurt anybody, >> or create any compatibility issues since the specs that references >> SHorig are not changed by SHbiss mere existence. > >So do yo envision implementers to have multiple code paths for SH, >SHbis, SHbisbis??? No. But if implementers want to support the FooBar: header which requires SHter, they will have to upgrade their SH parser to SHter. Doing so will not change the parsing or validation of headers specified against SH or SHbis. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 19:01:35 UTC