Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02.txt - section 5.1

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 15 May 2012 05:27 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 6328321F84D8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 22:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.057
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.542, 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 xOlj763FyKes for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 22:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B6B21F849A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 22:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SUAGY-0003zr-O3 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 05:25:46 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1SUAGO-0003xv-70 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 05:25:36 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1SUAGK-0005dG-F4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 05:25:33 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q4F5NZIe008984; Tue, 15 May 2012 07:23:35 +0200
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:23:35 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: John Sullivan <jsullivan@velocix.com>, Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120515052335.GA8977@1wt.eu>
References: <0A15D230-F8D2-498F-894B-86A3C987C456@mnot.net> <aae9c9339c5d775b57e0371b609b9334@treenet.co.nz> <20120504113403.5a65e4ff@hetzer> <4FA5D74A.4020900@treenet.co.nz> <20120506055104.GB8105@1wt.eu> <20120514135554.551063c0@hetzer> <20120514123746.GJ1694@1wt.eu> <4FB10696.5040508@velocix.com> <20120514214840.GM1694@1wt.eu> <4FB17F56.2020609@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4FB17F56.2020609@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1SUAGK-0005dG-F4 fd654f8b5f51347482551f196f6b22ce
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02.txt - section 5.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20120515052335.GA8977@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13543
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SUAGY-0003zr-O3@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 05:25:46 +0000

Hi Julian,

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:55:34PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-05-14 23:48, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >...
> >OK in theory but in practice I'm fairly sure we'll see IPv6 addresses
> >sent unquoted because a number of implementations will not have noticed
> >they became mandatory. That's why sometimes widening a character set to
> >better fit what it is supposed to represent makes a lot of sense. This
> >can even be done by slightly extending the grammar :
> >
> >    Forwarded-v = 1#( token "=" ( ipv4 / ipv6 / token / quoted-string ) *( 
> >    ";" ... ) )
> >...
> 
> The downside is that you can't use an off-the-shelf parser component, 
> which I believe is a pretty big downside.
> 
> The HTTP community has been inventing new microsyntaxes for many years, 
> and as far as I can tell, most header field parsers out there are broken 
> beyond belief. We need less of them, even if this means that a few edge 
> cases will be more verbose than necessary.

I see, and indeed this is a good point. Considering the number of times
I've heard "hey, your product sends me commas in IP addresses", it is
certain that people don't understand what they retrieve there.

Cheers,
Willy