IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Link rel uniqueness

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 21 October 2012 03:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A390E21F899B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.164
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.565, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ooCwjF36UZ2r for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0560D21F894E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.87.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2265F22E253; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:52:05 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <23E04C5A-2806-4D28-B90C-A547FB0B042E@nordsc.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:52:00 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E164D9C7-37E3-410F-B1AA-658B8E9DB953@mnot.net>
References: <23E04C5A-2806-4D28-B90C-A547FB0B042E@nordsc.com>
To: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Link rel uniqueness
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 03:52:13 -0000

Hi Jan,

What's the specific requirement you're referring to?

Semantically, in ANY HTTP header defined using the "," list production, the following are equivalent:

Foo: 1
Foo: 2

and

Foo: 1, 2

Regards,


On 21/10/2012, at 9:33 AM, Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am seeking a clarification ragarding link rel uniqueness in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
> 
> AFAIU the required uniqueness of rel is 'per header' and thus, the following HTTP response headers in a single response would be valid according to RFC 5988:
> 
> 
> Link: </a>; rel="describedBy"
> Link: </b>; rel="describedBy"
> 
> Correct?
> 
> Jan
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email