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

Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-structure-retrofit-00.txt

From: Richard Backman, Annabelle <richanna@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 19:08:37 +0000
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1F4CCD7D-8E09-43A0-988E-5A4432881D3E@amazon.com>
I love the idea of retroactively applying Structured Fields to existing header fields that fit its syntax. I'm not sure I grok the intent of the SF- representations though. Is the expectation that a message might contain both the "legacy" and structured field representation of a header field, e.g., have both `Date` and `SF-Date`? If we allow messages to contain multiple representations of the same value, there is an opportunity for nasty bugs when different parts of an application stack look at different representations without validating that they actually represent the same value.

—
Annabelle Backman (she/her)
richanna@amazon.com<mailto:richanna@amazon.com>




On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:18 AM, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu<mailto:jricher@mit.edu>> wrote:


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


I think this is a great idea and we should push this work forward. In the Signatures draft, we’d love to be able to point to a separate document for information about canonicalizing fields wherever possible. We can already do that with things that are native structured fields, and this would allow us to point to a list that lets  you say “you can treat it as a native structured field even if it’s not defined as one”.

 — Justin

On Oct 6, 2021, at 7:07 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net<mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote:

FYI.

This was previously hidden in the binary structured fields draft, but it seems potentially useful for other purposes -- e.g., exposing more fields in a structure-oriented API for HTTP (e.g., Fetch), canonicalising fields (e.g., for Signatures), etc.

Cheers,


Begin forwarded message:

From: internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-structure-retrofit-00.txt
Date: 7 October 2021 at 10:05:19 am AEDT
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net<mailto:mnot@mnot.net>>


A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-http-structure-retrofit-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: draft-nottingham-http-structure-retrofit
Revision: 00
Title: Retrofit Structured Fields for HTTP
Document date: 2021-10-07
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 14
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nottingham-http-structure-retrofit-00.txt

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-http-structure-retrofit/

Html:           https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nottingham-http-structure-retrofit-00.html

Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nottingham-http-structure-retrofit



Abstract:
  This specification defines how a selection of existing HTTP fields
  can be handled as Structured Fields.




The IETF Secretariat



--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/




Received on Friday, 15 October 2021 19:09:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 28 January 2023 21:29:44 UTC