Re: Reminder: Call for Proposals - HTTP/2.0 and HTTP Authentication

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 27 April 2012 07:40 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 EBAC821F86BD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, 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 N-Q0tJQ+zhs3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C0F21F86BB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SNfmZ-0004BB-Tx for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:39:59 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1SNfmR-0004AK-GA for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:39:51 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1SNfmN-0005of-Kh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:39:49 +0000
Received: from l6ky4jl1.rackspace.corp (unknown [69.20.3.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6B7122E253; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:39:25 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbejLcSg-BySah3LJToqzAZzsaUu7YC10a+u1HA9OTq+iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:39:21 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <98C118D0-3F2A-44D8-8A9A-4F04DD68D8D7@mnot.net>
References: <14A09626-8397-4656-A042-FEFDDD017C9F@mnot.net> <CABP7RbexZk_3RjJ2ACVr6mOYzoS_O-6dqA0BWb7Eg-qqsLsRXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CF256E22-C7B3-4CA7-88F4-E0E14863BE38@mnot.net> <CABP7RbejLcSg-BySah3LJToqzAZzsaUu7YC10a+u1HA9OTq+iQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
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
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1SNfmN-0005of-Kh 1450798b2d74001ecf1e95984e3cd6cd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reminder: Call for Proposals - HTTP/2.0 and HTTP Authentication
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/98C118D0-3F2A-44D8-8A9A-4F04DD68D8D7@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13485
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: <E1SNfmZ-0004BB-Tx@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:39:59 +0000

On 27/04/2012, at 5:32 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> 
> It may be because it's after midnight and I really should be getting
> some sleep, but i don't quite follow what you're saying about
> requiring knowledge of the headers to translate between the different
> encodings.

Right now, it's possible to encode non-Latin-1 characters into headers using an encoding, like that described in RFC5987.

However, that isn't a blanket encoding; i.e. the header definition has to specify its use. Generic software can't just look at headers and say "look, that's internationalised"; it has to know the header's specific syntax to lift it up to UTF-8 (for example).


>> That's out of scope for this work, I think.
> 
> Very well. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for me to write something up
> on this independently then.


Please do, I think that would be interesting.

Cheers,

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