Re: JSON headers

Yanick Rochon <yanick.rochon@gmail.com> Mon, 11 July 2016 19:53 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 645FB12D5B4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.307 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=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 0HyVlqocuO4D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76BD312D51C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bMhBn-0007cv-FC for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:48:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:48:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bMhBn-0007cv-FC@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <yanick.rochon@gmail.com>) id 1bMhBj-0007cE-DN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:48:19 +0000
Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.213.43]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <yanick.rochon@gmail.com>) id 1bMhBh-00028V-IN for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:48:18 +0000
Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id v6so153602969vkb.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vJJn1EqQpgkXtHs2UZOaQLy/HDgIM8uq4ocQf/+JNRU=; b=fPJwisVsvFoS3r/EwHRw+dqkrbEGfM4n5Q2XWVpuyvOxqTEBO3wBuQ4fFVC5y5isZX ojyj0PDWWfcJHIWrvPcjsULNGf7KCtXR0ghLAS1sSU9ppZbeE4ciVbWNGEG/wcmuHQXe fU3iIPqBkfNTJryKZEksEAETVBnZQp+QW/3G9AyrWCB+T0jj7wylJti+MBXWfHV1P5eV SW7D1cIP2jwTR/PEEl45bxj8YJTuohGh+q1VJ1VFdexQkZfDRDc7dQZ71zs5C6WqEWEx hehcCwSj9HgOuT/JYx7qIV+wDQkISzHT/314ZYJ8nIMvwBE+ooWZjPOaxoN5xzw0TZzh Z1RQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vJJn1EqQpgkXtHs2UZOaQLy/HDgIM8uq4ocQf/+JNRU=; b=iNamvi394zIA4gqg2ejs16JaYeNhwqHttAW8ud/A+vRuxFgKOct9QXd2Urfv5/0OLy +JY5f39PE5WJ0vvIwcDy8YrzPlhz0zep3mBPfuWH/QVE1Unm4NhNv2l59PbJq1WBYrN1 aBxQLO4zWqodO4fX6g6j44uymG+2UcUPtRajWAWUTajPUFDlu5JpntrPCUnxoqvEhC3H Rz7N6iCk/ojTZHv5u47q9SYfNIDaS61/nCf/TCGj8TfpEHDFgErquHlA8FDkgw2zd54T RHGHuHVtGh07q3/GzzUQ0L2nUubXaVHbnesJZPt6vwSI30sncK5obZi5Cw23jx8SHuoH oI6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKlg00fERBUlSZKDKzhRxvVDjq2ErygCSxaHMZnZ0pZhcwFHJapz5KmjeNiFtrE2ueYvLDbczWSrfB2Fg==
X-Received: by 10.31.236.197 with SMTP id k188mr8744224vkh.138.1468266471757; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.105.75 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160711192515.GA9614@1wt.eu>
References: <8739.1468234635@critter.freebsd.dk> <38b3e7bb-3202-f489-ff15-d4d545e13ca0@gmx.de> <8854.1468236033@critter.freebsd.dk> <326f0b93-dbd5-3dfb-2a35-d1bf084684b4@gmx.de> <9221.1468245597@critter.freebsd.dk> <aa9cee9c-d8e3-17ba-9fcd-e327575cd5a8@gmx.de> <9801.1468259070@critter.freebsd.dk> <15d27f23-6b51-1e8e-3f10-194c80570424@gmx.de> <20160711190107.GB9542@1wt.eu> <0e467573-4f68-80a5-14a4-5a63b41ac4d4@gmx.de> <20160711192515.GA9614@1wt.eu>
From: Yanick Rochon <yanick.rochon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:47:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB0No9kgPJqMZQ2=qpMw4yh7Tq-1V+nkuagrN71HTTeXYpJ9kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0919b27c1f0e0537616dc1"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.43; envelope-from=yanick.rochon@gmail.com; helo=mail-vk0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.409, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bMhBh-00028V-IN 42adfdde435c250bf89feb140827e5ad
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: JSON headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAB0No9kgPJqMZQ2=qpMw4yh7Tq-1V+nkuagrN71HTTeXYpJ9kA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31910
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 11 July 2016 at 15:25, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:11:09PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> OK thanks for explaining. But then what situation could lead to this
> confusing object to be emitted ? I thought that it was only related to
> posting multiple headers in which case I don't see the issue if we
> consider that all these headers are lists, and are then concatenated
> by the recipient.
>
>
If, for example, a sender sends a request such as

{ ..., "Accept":
"application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5",
..., "Accept": "text/plain;q=0.9", ... }

through a clumsy string concatenation, what is the suggested behavior?