IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-kamp-httpbis-structure | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Sat, 15 October 2016 09:19 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 76B88129424 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oexbig_nkBhh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:19:12 -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 3546112950E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bvL3c-0005sH-Ti for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:15:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:15:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bvL3c-0005sH-Ti@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 <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1bvL3Z-0004m3-5B for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:15:05 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1bvL3X-0005Jr-72 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:15:04 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.55.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1D5273B4; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:14:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u9F9EciJ078166; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:14:38 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Matt Menke <mmenke@google.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@varnish-cache.org>
In-reply-to: <20161015070704.792DC138A6@welho-filter2.welho.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <CAEK7mvoXqyX3cADJytjU+C158EULgPLbzAb5kiUN=8WWxhi29Q@mail.gmail.com> <20161015070704.792DC138A6@welho-filter2.welho.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <78164.1476522878.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:14:38 +0000
Message-ID: <78165.1476522878@critter.freebsd.dk>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@phk.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.230, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bvL3X-0005Jr-72 2d769190e3911ab6bbbbec957a2f9ff5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-kamp-httpbis-structure | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/78165.1476522878@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32598
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>

--------
In message <20161015070704.792DC138A6@welho-filter2.welho.com>, Kari Hurtta wri
tes:
>
>> The token rule in RFC7230 already includes asterisks, so I don't think identifier or token_or_asterix 
>> is needed.
>
>Yes. 

The "_or_asterix" comes from the intial analysis where I used a much
tighter specification for the name of the dictionaries in the list.

But I forgot to clean this up entirely in the normative ABNF, specifically
it should be:

       identifier = token  [ "/" token ] 

>> On single/multiple headers: The draft has a comment about this, but it doesn't really comment on 
>> whether the following is legal:
>> 
>> Foo: >bar<
>> Foo: >baz<

This is, but my draft does not define if the two values should be
appended as one list (most sane headers) or treated as separate
instances (Cookie header).

I'm personally against repeat headers, because you cannot act on
a header until you've seen/decompressed the full set of headers.

>> Or:
>> 
>> Foo: >bar<, >baz<

This is not inside Common Structure, and I don't think we should
make space for it.

>3.2.2.  Field Order
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.2.2
>
>|   A recipient MAY combine multiple header fields with the same field
>|   name into one "field-name: field-value" pair, without changing the
>|   semantics of the message, by appending each subsequent field value to
>|   the combined field value in order, separated by a comma. 

Yes, this is what I don't like, and I think we should limit the application
of it by all possible means.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email