W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2021

Re: Editorial issues with RFC 7616

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:00:57 +0200
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63591c93-d380-301e-1bd9-bca75d240826@gmx.de>
Am 30.06.2021 um 14:52 schrieb Christer Holmberg:
> ...
>> Unless stated, things are case-sensitive, so I really don't see an issue here yet.
> Is that defined for HTTP somewhere, or is it a generic ABNF rule?
> ...

The ABNF defines legal syntax, nothing more. That does not affect at all
whether case differences are significant.

In the HTTP specs, we try to be consistent in stating when things are
case-insensitive. If we don't say that, the default of case-sensitity

(Note that outside the ASCII-only niche of HTTP fields,
case-insensitivity is a hard problem, essentially requiring access to
the Unicode character database)

> The reason I ask is because for SIP the default for parameter values is case-insensitive, unless otherwise specified, and tokens are always case-insensitive.
> Also, is there a reason for e.g., 'userhash' to be case-sensitive, while 'stale' is case-insensitive? For both parameters the only allowed values are "true" and "false".

That you would need to ask the authors of the Digest spec (I note that
"userhash" was introduced in 7616, while stale predates that).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2021 13:01:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 30 June 2021 13:01:14 UTC