Re: If not JSON, what then ?

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 02 August 2016 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D518712D5A0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 06:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 h5V6RJp8BkGT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 06:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2686D12D59B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 06:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bUZRd-0001DR-8R for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:09:17 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:09:17 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bUZRd-0001DR-8R@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bUZRY-0001CG-Ue for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:09:12 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bUZRQ-0004Xr-PT for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:09:10 +0000
Received: from [192.168.98.220] (unknown [62.154.197.60]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1E66509B8; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:08:40 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <64183.1470143212@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:08:37 +0200
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E5204FE7-6D33-4822-8F09-DFE4BF0D28AE@mnot.net>
References: <77778.1470037414@critter.freebsd.dk> <12ED69B4-C924-475E-9432-B8FEB4B9DF80@mnot.net> <20160802115355.GD32124@1wt.eu> <ECE83331-ACDD-42E7-B99C-3E4E4C66DD13@mnot.net> <64183.1470143212@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bUZRQ-0004Xr-PT 3fa603998e90b1566a648574bee9ccc6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: If not JSON, what then ?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E5204FE7-6D33-4822-8F09-DFE4BF0D28AE@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32143
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

> On 2 Aug 2016, at 3:06 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> 
> --------
> In message <ECE83331-ACDD-42E7-B99C-3E4E4C66DD13@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
> tes:
> 
>> Stepping back, I think we're talking about a set of rules something like 
>> this;
> 
>> A. For a newly defined header field that explicitly uses the new format, 
>>  send it in the new format
>> B. For existing header fields, if their expression in the new format is 
>>  defined:
>> 1. If you have evidence that your peer can accept the new header 
>>    format, send them in the new format
>> 2. Otherwise, send them in the original format.
>> C. All other fields are always sent in the original, HTTP/1 format.
> 
> Yes, something like that.
> 
> However, this is digging deep into the extreme far end of the ideas
> I presented, and it seems rather too speculative to dig much further.
> 
> I am far more interested in hearing what people think about the
> important part of the write-up:  Deriving and generalizing a
> common header structure from existing HTTP1 header syntaxes ?

I think that's the way to go, and that using it for *newly defined* headers is a good enough use case.

If we can pause discussion of porting existing headers to the new format for the time being, it may help.

Cheers,


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