Re: [apps-discuss] R: Re: Question about RFC 7239

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 29 August 2016 06:33 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 4A6F812D13A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9lrQeb2ne9O for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99DEE12D12F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.98.81]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MMjgF-1bl7M20yD9-008X3q; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:33:25 +0200
To: "luigipinca@libero.it" <luigipinca@libero.it>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <399542882.4083761472419322679.JavaMail.httpd@webmail-56.iol.local>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <412b3dc3-efdd-4a80-c7c4-e7d98c8516da@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:33:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <399542882.4083761472419322679.JavaMail.httpd@webmail-56.iol.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:fd2XvWbT754DcvhH+MvW1c1w5Grw+QG3J3wCL7nG76xjPb/cS8l vKZtTEwJGP30ON+nLo0i+6GVC8GYwlaIQz7SnI5JxApowSvDtnly+T8P8Hc6QrQPSkgNk+w lGrzFi/elYMcH8g0Hdqy2W2vbaT2GOFEBWIouojI+W3GfkxTfmLQQY816oiBXvJ1Wn3O5cS P/9oHKx5iQzxIP0ar8iDg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:D3sc2cPCNnk=:DjhiZnaWUy+Sx4nXD7Sr1X D61iu4N0r8ycQTHw/TGQ3cl/8Tn6aYT7/nMUTnM27I+Qabg1v3jGcSf3MX1zyNLJgyEDFuHEo /YzMhPDZVvsHrFIE8OaS9xT7c7eqpk4fDC3uwFb4D/DbePx9M+M3kkQkrLrxJBOAREbWEN9g4 w13R5QE3b9ltpL9AtVZu31k8KXJFyQB/RZisDzxvxnIJ0Ls7FDkmSeUpFDzaZKw+2NMiRqtBv 4/zu4Hsm7u1idOtZATnu3MfGT6+FjLT4b5XxZpQmgPn1YZxli5ZMaz31PVmi94XB5u2Vr5Fg5 6VO3NTmpBVeLpDEUQZJUnvu5NBgc99YvKDg0yxRCBZOTS/gu+U+PeyYa9/EhCmCVUCV4k+2nV 3MUsoJQj6Xb8epa5SZ2CqDIigwULZwWrjVX724tJkbmYnWEA4uHgmyOe6ekS/DZFPLWbgej1h YWuQ+MHZz26r72QGZIkOHLFy+5AcCcENg1tCX49J+gkE0l9Cv+ApnFazYQg+OKTLgQxlRKexM Hewjq1J5dX7VWNMA645ZkRJocBUqu1QpOrBNG3HYE/ktCM+4KDhIJwBUO+ydvrgRM3TCvaEyD xQGDIt1A/c7qHjCp7pIUOQBKFo7lrEadZ9foppe1aiUN25ETSc3HjfpqBncvcNpMLDNv5S6nR iiUrGgd8U3+yTmVE++tMId5dZHolJff9Hg4rk6/4KrftdRMIb51RFncNboAhSp/xjdCps+x29 yN9YGZN4ngkzulZ+Xz4qRtHdMVO5GNbdmDXUP0SVF9TENVEjZsK/p02nPRnBFQ2Q6DfOb8hW3 Ul0IuJA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/t0owP91eh2-A6RS9s90k2elEukw>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] R: Re: Question about RFC 7239
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:33:30 -0000

On 2016-08-28 23:22, luigipinca@libero.it wrote:
> Thank you Julian but I still don't fully get it.
> According to the #rule extension as shown in your link,
>
> "foo , ,bar,"
>
> is a valid value, so I assume that in our case
>
> "; , ,"
>
> is also a valid value as forwarded-element is defined like this
>
> forwarded-element = [ forwarded-pair ] *( ";" [ forwarded-pair ] )
>
> My main concern is actually on this definition. Why is forwarded-pair
> optional?
>
> Regards,
>
> Luigi
> ...

Ah, now I understand your concern - I was focusing on the HTTP ABNF list 
construct.

Sorry, Julian