Re: Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02.txt - section 6 ABNF

[Amos Jeffries <[e-mail]>]

On 02.05.2012 11:33, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> HTTP folk,
>
> Please have a look at this document and send along comments,
> especially if you're an intermediary or firewall person, or consume
> the existing X-Forwarded-For header.
>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02>
>
> Cheers,
>

** section 6 ABNF clash between port and obfport is still a nasty 
thorn.

IMO obfport should start with a mandatory '_'. We have to special-case 
it anyway to parse the ALPHA component might as well bring it inline 
with the rules for obfuscated node and obfuscated identifier ABNF.

Alternatively why bother with obfport at all?

  As I understand/recall it the use-case was to enable for= or by= with 
a visible IP and obfscated/private port.

Would not allowing one of the listed field values be obfuscated 
identifier be better? that way the port can be omitted entirely from the 
for= and whatever detail the hop needs to obfuscate and pass on can be 
encoded inside the obfuscated identifier token.



AYJ