IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP/2 Header Encoding Status Update

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 04 March 2013 14:59 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 C4F5A21F86B3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 06:59:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TDFg7lNN3Abu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 06:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A8F21F86A5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 06:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UCWqk-00009t-1Q for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:58:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:58:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UCWqk-00009t-1Q@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <lear@cisco.com>) id 1UCWqT-000096-PU for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:58:29 +0000
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <lear@cisco.com>) id 1UCWqS-0002GB-Ub for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:58:29 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=919; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362409108; x=1363618708; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=prereaX9KrmVMkRRvjC6WJ8quldCwRijYiLvCqI2YlY=; b=QsJIG5ED/WmiFrEc53QBNJEQaIJPZdgZDbdO0BSoC87Gk0VcLbwhRL4z vjn1frH1OwDdPyxNcMg+KUBUjnepgs1o4vMDRY1ZYqKqsNm6/QRDxIlU5 tJK9AdPwMtRDNVbJ5r54Nb4enH9QtYgTv8bWWWZk9rOW5P45h4QOERan8 c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwFAFa1NFGQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABFhglHu32BARZzgh8BAQEEI1UBEAsYAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGDQEFAgEBiA+0TZFwgSONageCLYETA5ZGkGyDCQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,779,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="151166786"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2013 14:58:02 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-55-90-103.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-90-103.cisco.com [10.55.90.103]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r24Ew161018313 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:58:02 GMT
Message-ID: <5134B678.2010308@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:58:00 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CABP7RbfK9jT=-wXqv8wo6fJr8Wg0g9SYTZ3FeXHC=4yhihdsug@mail.gmail.com> <4D326297-42A8-487E-9450-7A971754C901@mnot.net> <loom.20130301T113152-432@post.gmane.org> <CABP7Rbc+QFQuEFocTsLZ68StriY+acqR0+DNLEnT-MXhr2MF-w@mail.gmail.com> <61cfe44be424129036f6bf68354e9c89.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <6DB9F6DB-E351-46F0-B694-89EA33C15246@checkpoint.com> <loom.20130304T122610-306@post.gmane.org> <25456.1362406869@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <25456.1362406869@critter.freebsd.dk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=144.254.224.140; envelope-from=lear@cisco.com; helo=ams-iport-1.cisco.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.696, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.627, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UCWqS-0002GB-Ub 95a8258440b34ea55d8e9f66ff13ea0c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 Header Encoding Status Update
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5134B678.2010308@cisco.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16966
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 3/4/13 3:21 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> --------
> In message <loom.20130304T122610-306@post.gmane.org>, Nicolas Mailhot writes:
>
>> Also would if be possible to ask one of the IETF workgroups that worked on time
>> subjects to propose a time format safe wrt leap seconds and such? 
> At present there are no relevant time formats which are leap-second safe.
>

>From a *format* perspective, at least ISO-8601 and RFC-5322 (Message
Format) are examples where leap-seconds are supported.  I don't know all
time formats.  It's quite possible some standards have made it up as
they went along, and just blew that play.  When talking about seconds
from an epoch, it seems to me that if the second occurred it should be
counted, but I would suspect there already is a standard there as well,
and we should follow it.  What would Linux do? ;-)

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email