Re: Working Group Last Call: Incremental HTTP Messages

2025年10月15日(水) 11:01 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:

> Just a reminder, WGLC ends soon - please give your feedback (in
> particular, whether you support publication).
>

As one of the coauthors, I support publication but that might not count.
That said, I'm writing this email because I have one question.

At the moment, the draft states that the Incremental header field takes
"just one valid value, which is of type Boolean: "?1"." [1]

Is this approach consistent with our precedence?

Today, I was reading RFC 9297 and it allows the use of `capsule-protocol:
?0`.[2]

OTOH, IIUC RFC 9213 prohibits the use of `no-store=?0`, stating that
"no-store always has a Boolean true value" and that "implementations MUST
NOT generate values that violate these inferred constraints." [3]

To me it seems that, if we are to consider RFC 9213 as an exception that
retrofits an old header field, we might want to allow the use of
`Incremental: ?0`.

But I do know if that is the case, hence asking on list.

[1]
https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental.html#name-the-incremental-header-fiel
[2]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9297.html#name-the-capsule-protocol-header
[3] https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc9213.html#syntax



>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > On 28 Sep 2025, at 6:37 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone,
> >
> > This email starts a working group last call for Incremental HTTP
> Messages.
> >
> > See:
> >  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental/
> >  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-incremental-01.html
> >
> > Please send your review and comments in response to this email, and/or
> file issues to https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues.
> >
> > This call will be open for three weeks until Monday, 20 October, 2025.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>

-- 
Kazuho Oku