- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:20:51 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- Mark Nottingham writes: > <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2399> > > [...] > > I made an attempt here: > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/167e840515a I agree that the last comma of 4.2 is problematic. As I understand it, the use of "not allowed" instead of SHALL NOT means that it has no formal power in the first place. Even if we solved that /nothing/ we can write in SF(bis), can prevent field definitions of the general form: "Attempt parsing as sf-foo, if that fails do the following: ..." Where "..." can be anything, including: "do this text-processing, then try sf-foo again". So I see three possible ways we can go, in my order of preference: A) We can delete the last comma of 4.2. B) We can make it a strong warning: [...] and loosening this requirement in a field definitions will make everybody either ignore your field, rather than implement a bespoke parser for it, or hate your guts until we run out of IPv6 addresses. or C) We can introduce some kind of "compliance-mark": [...] and fields defined as »100% SF(bis)-serialized™« SHALL NOT loosen this requirement in any way. Poul-Henning -- 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 Monday, 27 February 2023 08:21:05 UTC