IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Multiple header fields with the same field name - unwritten assumption about quoted commas in values?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 16 January 2013 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 41DB91F0C6A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:09:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 bg+jtp2fBVcn for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:09:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3FB1F0CE4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TvGYC-000108-54 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:08:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:08:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TvGYC-000108-54@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TvGY8-0000zQ-0I for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:08:12 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdcahe.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.74] helo=homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TvGY7-0005CO-9O for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:08:11 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1092F406A for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:07:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=TvXSSfGyD8aIbO/q5EyI d2yky4I=; b=mgm1W5jQ+M9h0BZ921PbeZnLq+Go8gaHQGzoFTqQnWhzOQYxonI8 PIJGgo9gdLqrSlnQJEExIK7h/OwJc/iBwYhLPBTRpqzYMrIupA8nO7/SflG0Fqaw 1p5n3odhOEd//kPSy2K146p3inOWfg3ybIL1vnHtAgsxMH8KwUTSxfk=
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F53B2F4060 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:07:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id dr13so472289wgb.25 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:07:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.96.225 with SMTP id dv1mr7503069wib.0.1358294868789; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:07:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.82.73 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:07:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1390897A-59CF-451B-B3CD-BB39906BDACD@mnot.net>
References: <CAA6tFMtOtpu-KJ1PMctU-XqZBXieOgb=uxPNj9wkRBvvbK7iXg@mail.gmail.com> <CACuKZqFWzApgkbQUEgOoNrumJFKSeVFZeCzZgvWDBGukykVqiA@mail.gmail.com> <50ED4DB4.5010803@gmx.de> <CACuKZqHDWbNMiwjkxvBuAt-UEg_tjzEvFZsyXM2U+5H5qxK76A@mail.gmail.com> <50ED9CEF.8080609@gmx.de> <CACuKZqFQ1=0sU7uhnh9_xew5=jPjS3WtEgrtu1RFH+Nu_=FwrQ@mail.gmail.com> <50EDA819.4040402@gmx.de> <CACuKZqH4+JUe4Gqp7LRGkCorFdQ107S=sf2uOSZnMkdgHmJaaQ@mail.gmail.com> <50EDD95C.9080206@gmx.de> <CAA6tFMsgAKL+-UW6rS0ScxpvukBhJ2ExT9KMWudiKa65YCpkew@mail.gmail.com> <50F549D8.2050501@gmx.de> <360A0ACE-4CA6-400A-BFE9-7DFF89AAB439@opera.com> <50F57628.5030502@gmx.de> <BD31B7FE-1CB4-48AD-A119-37A3509EF8E9@opera.com> <6D9EA8FA-50A6-44B1-A2EF-BB428E94183C@mnot.net> <CAK3OfOj8G3gFbTK_vPSnjS0qij+SUB3t9CdG80FYW5tbGgKR3A@mail.gmail.com> <C6A43E78-4F94-4FE3-A049-678555896FEC@mnot.net> <CAK3OfOiS1UPqvsk5H8RWUKyw8MB=uykeMkXzZoffm6732=UjMg@mail.gmail.com> <86DE887E-B189-40D2-A867-C81CFB0434AB@mnot.net> <CAK3OfOiWzJqHr8VSzn6WFcWRGJEr59XiUyh+wGTDnf1ydVL=3g@mail.gmail.com> <1390897A-59CF-451B-B3CD-BB39906BDACD@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:07:48 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOg17M3LTPwFJXFuHrq4AZh505hq27xoeVwJsPTvA7_3aw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Piotr Dobrogost <p@ietf.dobrogost.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.74; envelope-from=nico@cryptonector.com; helo=homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.300, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TvGY7-0005CO-9O 03f77bdbcfa31b243156374ca311e8aa
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Multiple header fields with the same field name - unwritten assumption about quoted commas in values?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAK3OfOg17M3LTPwFJXFuHrq4AZh505hq27xoeVwJsPTvA7_3aw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/15896
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 Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> On 16/01/2013, at 10:57 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>> No.  I'm saying that it's OK for apps to do that but not any other
>> entities (middleboxes), mostly because middleboxes can't possibly know
>> about headers that hadn't been registered when they were implemented.
>
> OK. Is this an actual problem you've encountered?
>
> I'm fine with adding some clarifying text if it helps implementers, but I haven't seen this confusing any middlebox vendors; they tend to leave the bits alone...

I noticed Poul's and someone else's replies that in their middlebox
implementations they concluded that it's never safe to merge headers.
If that's the case (and I do think it follows from the facts that it
is the case) then we should say so rather than leave each implementor
to figure this out on their own.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email