Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sat, 08 January 2011 10:20 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737833A69CA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 02:20:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.422
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.577, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vopo9yMaH2q9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 02:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FD93A69C4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 02:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1PbVux-0001xt-RQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:21:03 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <evnikita2@gmail.com>) id 1PbVtt-0001IY-5F for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:19:57 +0000
Received: from mail-bw0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <evnikita2@gmail.com>) id 1PbVtr-0001eT-IR for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:19:57 +0000
Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so19747792bwz.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:19:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NSy4Q4ss+NNXUW8WSDrqnjgs3IfA4rGWOPSKVhtyTWg=; b=ntTafH6oixFJe5XABb6uNffF874DxxxwGmTjugfGv9LMzAFVZBbUV5Xnj+3j6O2PE/ PhSKV5jSntMDrIp/IMhgXeh3flDhPdbW612XtTag5LIk+DnaS39DXtzk9yRBMK5aJb/N vaC7EGS6x0SUx/EOLx8ey4vFLS6viM5DbznZ0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ba8eBGlj83qOYoMz3peCPPL41u8LXyzPtFIradfkEfkh9Qu/J64UwlZ52cHqgTudJy 5aADjv8/9ltuFUKO2RxhQ9QeajXZB6vWQvcELxz8sl7ymSR5Yn4PKCntFvm/ftQUMEt/ EWinbKMtKmyHLX8uxSmNnxC/2vqxmDMWF6vEk=
Received: by 10.204.52.134 with SMTP id i6mr19900903bkg.36.1294481969175; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:19:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j11sm14640528bka.12.2011.01.08.02.19.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:19:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D283A42.3080303@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 12:19:46 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, ietf-message-headers@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
References: <4D280272.6090402@gmail.com> <4D28218A.2020406@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4D28218A.2020406@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599, DKIM_SIGNED=0.001, DKIM_VERIFIED=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1PbVtr-0001eT-IR b2239e565b0dfd19f74f7b812aac3e9c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4D283A42.3080303@gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10014
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@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-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1PbVux-0001xt-RQ@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:21:03 +0000
08.01.2011 10:34, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 08.01.2011 07:21, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> This document summarizes the Last Call for >> draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized. >> >> The Last Call was requested on 11 December, 2010 by Alexey Melnikov and >> was announced on 13 November, 2010. The period of 32 days has been >> assigned for this Last Call, that ends on 14 January, 2011. >> >> The Last call has been requested for version -08. However during the >> Last Call 3 new versions appeared. The latest one is -11, submitted on 8 >> January, 2011 > > If a draft changes three times during LC, there may be a problem. I > encourage you to go back to the drawing board, and think hard(er about > the feedback you got, in particular > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010OctDec/0645.html>. Why do you think that the draft shouldn't be changed during LC? Moreover, I had some reasons for doing that. firstly, version -09 added the section that was not present in -08 and if I added it now, there would not be a possibility to discuss it. Version -10 presented the most stable one to reflect all the comments I received during the LC. And -11 was prepared as final for IESG review. I have fully answered all the question form the message you refer to. > > I also mentioned at least once that in many frameworks this is > essentially un-implementable, as different types of header fields are > processed by different, independent layers in the code, and thus > there's no way some part of the code will ever *know* which headers > have been "processed". Do you think that this is not a problem? That is the issues that would be decided by the implementators. Moreover, one code layer may support this technology while others may not. > >> ... >> * Syntax: Changed. Now is not /token**/but /1*VCAHR /for definition >> of the name of the header. >> ... > > Why? RFC2616 gives the following definition of token: token = 1*<any CHAR except CTLs or separators> separators = "(" | ")" | "<" |">" | "@" | "," | ";" | ":" | "\" |<"> | "/" | "[" | "]" | "?" | "=" | "{" | "}" | SP | HT And non-visible chars are not allowed in headers. So only VCHARs. > > Best regards, Julian >
- Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on d… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on d… Julian Reschke
- Last Call Summary on draft-yevstifeyev-http-heade… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on d… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on d… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on d… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on d… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on d… Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on d… Julian Reschke
- Using extension points without registries, was: [… Julian Reschke
- Re: Using extension points without registries, wa… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: Using extension points without registries, wa… Julian Reschke