W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2023

Re: Structured Fields: strict error handling (#2399)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:53:45 +0100
Message-ID: <0cd66dca-a996-cbcd-e106-bfa4812c9038@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 27.02.2023 14:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> Julian Reschke writes:
>>   > If parsing fails -- including when calling another algorithm -- the
>> entire field value MUST be ignored (i.e., treated as if the field were
>> not present in the section), or alternatively the complete HTTP message
>> MUST be treated as malformed. This is intentionally strict, to improve
>> interoperability and safety, and specifications referencing this
>> document are not allowed to loosen this requirement.
> Works for me.
> Although I still question the performative power of "not allowed to"
> vs. a real SHALL NOT ?

I guess that's a question of whether we want to reserve BCP14 keywords
on actual protocol requirements as opposed to rules for other specs (and
yes, there's a grey area here).

> If we adopt this form, it should be up front in 1.1 where we talk
> about strictness.
> Nitpicking:
> 	"-- including when calling another algorithm -- "

My reading is that this refers to the other "modules" of this algorithm,
but yes, maybe that can be misinterpreted.

> seems a confusing way to needlessly repeat what 1.1 says more clearly:
>     This specification intentionally defines strict parsing and
>     serialization behaviors using step-by-step algorithms; the only error
>     handling defined is to fail the operation altogether.
> And inserting "entire" before "operation" would make that even clearer.


Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 27 February 2023 13:53:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 27 February 2023 13:54:00 UTC