Re: Call for Adoption: Structured Fields Revision (RFC8941bis)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

I support this scope. 

One thing, just to make sure folks are aware: Retrofit currently defines a few places where SF parsing algorithms are relaxed, to make parsing more successful. See:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2235

Conceivably, we could move these relaxations into retrofit and put them behind a flag or mode, so that they're integrated into the algorithms, rather than monkey-patching them. We'd need to do it in a way that doesn't affect "normal" SF parsing, though.

Thoughts?


> On 20 Oct 2022, at 10:48 am, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Based on the previous discussion on the list, it sounds like the group has support for revising Structured Fields (RFC 8941) to include the new Date type, so we don’t need to add it as part of draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit. We also discussed wanting to have a tight scope and be able to ship the update quickly.
> 
> This email starts a call for adoption of that work, which will begin with the existing text of RFC 8941 as the -00 version and will have a very narrow scope. My proposed scope is as follows (slightly different from Mark’s original proposal, to adjust for some of the discussion on list):
> 
> - Add the Date type, currently in draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit
> - Make the "Defining New Structured Fields” section align with the style guide (https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide#structured-fields) to not recommend the use of ABNF in new header definitions
> - Add clarifications to the use of ABNF in the document (for example, emphasize that they are not normative), subject to WG discussion
> - Address minor technical issues and editorial fixes
> 
> We’ll run this call for adoption for 2 weeks, ending on November 2, 2022. Please respond to this email if you support doing this work or not, and if you have comments on the scope.
> 
> Best,
> Tommy

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