Re: Call for Adoption: Structured Fields Revision (RFC8941bis)

I support adoption with this scope.
David

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 5:01 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I support this scope.
>
> One thing, just to make sure folks are aware: Retrofit currently defines a
> few places where SF parsing algorithms are relaxed, to make parsing more
> successful. See:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2235
>
> Conceivably, we could move these relaxations into retrofit and put them
> behind a flag or mode, so that they're integrated into the algorithms,
> rather than monkey-patching them. We'd need to do it in a way that doesn't
> affect "normal" SF parsing, though.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> > On 20 Oct 2022, at 10:48 am, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Based on the previous discussion on the list, it sounds like the group
> has support for revising Structured Fields (RFC 8941) to include the new
> Date type, so we don’t need to add it as part of
> draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit. We also discussed wanting to have a tight
> scope and be able to ship the update quickly.
> >
> > This email starts a call for adoption of that work, which will begin
> with the existing text of RFC 8941 as the -00 version and will have a very
> narrow scope. My proposed scope is as follows (slightly different from
> Mark’s original proposal, to adjust for some of the discussion on list):
> >
> > - Add the Date type, currently in draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit
> > - Make the "Defining New Structured Fields” section align with the style
> guide (https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide#structured-fields),
> to not recommend the use of ABNF in new header definitions
> > - Add clarifications to the use of ABNF in the document (for example,
> emphasize that they are not normative), subject to WG discussion
> > - Address minor technical issues and editorial fixes
> >
> > We’ll run this call for adoption for 2 weeks, ending on November 2,
> 2022. Please respond to this email if you support doing this work or not,
> and if you have comments on the scope.
> >
> > Best,
> > Tommy
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>