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

Mark Nottingham <> Thu, 20 October 2022 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECC7C1524BD for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.06
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.06 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=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=S3+buEvO; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=DO0gGW2v
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WzmdXC6qjbEX for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE850C152584 for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1olIwI-005T89-SO for; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 23:57:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 23:57:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1olIwH-005T71-6M for; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 23:57:33 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1olIwF-00Fwyo-Dl for; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 23:57:32 +0000
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879F15C0121; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:57:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:57:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1666223839; x= 1666310239; bh=U292U1IiCOGyBDAp1Max8vS0vnAXDV1hGiSmiGwD/+Y=; b=S 3+buEvORuubzYyIK6MPYo6fFfORjm8dgcyAjj8dutfKI7EU2aSSM+7CUe9uvOxCw aeUwnnwFd8TexgGMPq6DFJ6QZe3ozTZyfXlP3bbKSuunm282yRTT554MCirGgNQd /1qmQTDSk3nLjt4DU1klamUyMw4286Vn3dmwwB4udcr7YfLUKNggtawWQGmm7yA6 yKIw/53TmybWNk+EVkVsp2V8dTiisqr6pYTUK2rXNqqU+HEXygGXNGvlznzXTbgV N0V2ahXXJ5IbsCVcqDuFFr466bGfwou7FJm6ibPFUMMrjUCCPmWEFVQgiqhiJeq0 MPxN4ddi4PKPbPnDd249A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1666223839; x= 1666310239; bh=U292U1IiCOGyBDAp1Max8vS0vnAXDV1hGiSmiGwD/+Y=; b=D O0gGW2v8bWzdr1UoA+5b7AXvnF0VTtuzkmDchvMZKlwCMUH6YdAu5G5+rKBpGbfT 6TS2epXBvHJAYZltVtQFC8nvVXd2lt2DX0mRz9EZuaVRnm5kk3MVrjk3f1NJZfZh C5abIp2loF3lvMJvfvINQFH+k0Sy6nlOy8TVpTkp0ahYKXukA6H3APp1VjYAlYpn oGlKHoLxEFLGG56SAxqzXxcF+H/0D3YCqupdSVKmw7F3MPmBB0a12rL/y/JxDyP7 3F5+HA2dbhZnKifvqKdYy9atoETpKxpd1K/Hh2dCmVUD48Xx1SQf1zBNmmy8KyKG 9JxCnYt+IM/tqXM8JqlAA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:345QY2JLnXd4wuectnw7d3VxzRQm-ZKxuRC4-J3A95KxFYsAGridLg> <xme:345QY-JAAQK3xw3oALsqf_E9McQ_sMAFAMBWGidkCi19zW4GPNraBKrEDGNmnk0at LTo9305e4eQD5sZSw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:345QY2sEjL658VvE19GWuATUsVVWFuzkGNo7rUKmofOTvCKmd0cvm8A110wTxokcsXO6MeN1ougkzgP0VCDunt6fW0DKzJO1J26XAGIm7NdBHLMkT4by-9cm>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeelhedgvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffvefgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeforghr khcupfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepgeehjeelhefgtdetieeiiefffeeljeejhedvuddvteevhefhvdetkeefleej uedunecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdphhhtthhpfihgrdhorhhgpdhmnh hothdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhr ohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:345QY7ZvHQ9gdekaAI_g3Y8-MStseWw_NzTtP_z_8dYzuniau9X7Bw> <xmx:345QY9bY8e07rpY9lYEZDpgJHPPnmmpGBGg5cr5UHzDZCKS2AocIsg> <xmx:345QY3Az-JJmEL2bW2Tz7WqfJDrlzYHESm17lOMNExWOLOuRfXMQxA> <xmx:345QY-Ajj8dAjom_KoDSmQUBnBCGcZATZUWwrOs7ccF7aZTWX4y2Og>
Feedback-ID: ie6694242:Fastmail
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:57:18 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 10:57:15 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Tommy Pauly <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (, signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (, signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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: 1olIwF-00Fwyo-Dl 3ced25bf901817fe21378f65af8592e4
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Structured Fields Revision (RFC8941bis)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/40472
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

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:

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.


> On 20 Oct 2022, at 10:48 am, Tommy Pauly <> 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 (, 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