Re: Working Group Last Call: Structured Headers for HTTP

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Wed, 29 January 2020 19:31 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 450A21200A1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:31:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Jwax1TI9f7o4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8C8F120058 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1iwt1e-0003hr-S1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 19:29:22 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 19:29:22 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1iwt1e-0003hr-S1@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <sayrer@gmail.com>) id 1iwt1d-0003h5-6K for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 19:29:21 +0000
Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <sayrer@gmail.com>) id 1iwt1b-00068Y-J9 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 19:29:21 +0000
Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id s18so924956iln.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:29:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fjFAxwJN63qp90oOYB0IXiuJTxt5QpyASX6shKgwPms=; b=LpiaNWJG+F0+H7OEsbHH30b7QZ4TZY96h5+zZ8X0CMoDSqIsc+RELkgg4vpqF8let3 TnRXVNE29o+vq3mtJX4fG+w9zjrVZW5q0VfqfQm+c84vuWZjTaWzpnuGfIy30MUDlhOs bmVwozIOz+2T1xRQoF3v/SNSQDQz3Lpp/BT8utbTteKGhCd74XQjhJ9Hpe1c3xx6f3mc EyXKZd/BSPDs0UHlzInI1RRtniXb2D60GEI4A4644dMTslKccAtMfbk3CiO07l/9Cr3F rxZ1akBwireqlNsJJhrRO/W0OYhJ0zyYDtSpVIWq/x5gvrsd1nkeCyrkulAaMfBaUDfr xxtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fjFAxwJN63qp90oOYB0IXiuJTxt5QpyASX6shKgwPms=; b=lSXFqyxX4hJ+Fq9v2b9CdEsqXSrgaf+UB58CIbBEItGt1iu+bYZuYQJlkBYH1kMtfV vz7WSCHqYyEiHZoewEBDxzO/3yryJzA3zXR3m4yHhwnoX2Dft0lIvBf8ZmHDNR/UdKLp WAx2+zziPxFheg3bOp5SwEVsFlBeKBkSTvrhsPNJ1LZMglF5xrQiT5ukh7C8yR14jIah m2KQFV3sqGUXoeP47udXVRZsigvrksD9iCqHff/bCvjYoYvDkkWBMMBn/xBlgxaMbyl2 FR3EaAvOJ6NUeIezOuf3SrZsR0lGo+p4J6PBtVwfNDts4C6GzcKXrDTQOb2biKYf+gyP GHlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXOCLUCsg+Fl0oqPudv6TnP6PkObg4IBtsN7b+QKfGV6/Zjzcfk OzU1EbqcNUo8reyRmdIPGo0AfYIEjuY/UVktSu8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxAV5MwM2e27Osy1EyTE7u2Ark80iE89VG1jmTlgrgcIi6Z1XSl33PzQ1MTP8BqxVG2oO2mfy9SAEDwiAbFEOA=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:9c1c:: with SMTP id h28mr741262ili.189.1580326158043; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:29:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C295C393-9602-4D41-9071-30629605E349@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <C295C393-9602-4D41-9071-30629605E349@apple.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:29:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sxvf8b+qviZoBbhD4CjFohswmGBx+AzXUvggck80-zeRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000478ea4059d4c5bc9"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d; envelope-from=sayrer@gmail.com; helo=mail-il1-x12d.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1iwt1b-00068Y-J9 8bd27a837459ecef5c4c11e81774f571
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call: Structured Headers for HTTP
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAChr6Sxvf8b+qviZoBbhD4CjFohswmGBx+AzXUvggck80-zeRg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37317
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:14 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Structured Headers draft was updated yesterday, and Mark (as author)
> let me know that the authors believe this is ready for last call. The
> issues list is down to zero, so it's a good time for the working group to
> take a careful read-through the document, and get it progressed!
>

I think the technical aim of the document is fine, but it needs another
round just looking for editorial nits. I found small things like:

Duplicate parsing steps (#2 and #6):
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-15#section-4.2

and duplicate references. I believe the document may also need a collected
ABNF grammar. There are references to things like "item_or_inner_list" that
indicate there probably is a grammar, but it's just not in the document. It
may also be worthwhile to add a PEG grammar to the test repository before
publication, so that it's clear that the specification is straightforward
to parse with a recursive descent parser (I would use Pest[0]).

thanks,
Rob

[0] https://github.com/pest-parser/pest