Re: Binary HTTP [RFC 9292] header name behavior

Doesn't that mean that gateways are stuck dealing with 18.0-18.3 clients
forever? iOS devices have a good update rate but it's not 100%.
David

On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 10:51 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:

> Actually — an update on this for our client behavior! While the original
> implementation didn’t enforce lowercase, the iOS and macOS client *does *enforce
> lowercasing for both sending and receiving as of the iOS 18.4 timeframe. So
> I think there isn’t any issue (from our perspective) of saying everyone
> should be lowercase from here on out.
>
> Thanks Guoye for reminding me of this update!
>
> Tommy
>
> On Aug 15, 2025, at 4:49 PM, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Tommy.
>
> Given that we have a widely deployed implementation that's not forcing a
> downcase, I think we might be stuck in the "tolerate non-compliance"
> equilibrium [1]. I'd suggest we write an errata saying that BHTTP encoders
> MUST downcase and BHTTP decoders MUST downcase to tolerate implementations
> from before the errata.
>
> David
>
> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9413#section-4.2
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 4:42 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
>
>> The Binary HTTP implementation on iOS/macOS clients don’t force downcase
>> field names currently, although all of the applications that run with it
>> use lower-case field names, as far as I’m aware.
>>
>> I’d be OK with downcasing going forward if that was the consensus of the
>> group.
>>
>> Tommy
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2025, at 4:54 PM, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I guess it comes down to what deployed implementations are doing in
>> production. Google's implementation currently downcases on both encode and
>> decode. If everyone does it on encode, we'd be happy to shift to rejecting
>> on decode to be more in line with RFC 9413.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 3:22 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025, at 06:25, Ricky Perez wrote:
>>> > Thank you for the context Martin! So just to clarify, should
>>> downcasing
>>> > happen at the encoding path, at the decoding path, or at both paths?
>>>
>>> Encoding.  The decoder would validate that the name was lowercase and
>>> reject.
>>>
>>> > I'm happy to assist with filing the erratum, though let me know if you
>>> > prefer I hold that off in favor of following some other process.
>>>
>>> I'm going to wait for others to weigh in.  I don't entirely trust my
>>> instincts on this one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>