IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: p1: BWS

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 18 April 2013 06:26 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 0877C21F8F44 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.700, 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 cHTztGolawhd for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EEE621F8F28 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1USiHC-0002ks-6s for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:24:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:24:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1USiHC-0002ks-6s@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1USiH9-0002k7-M8 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:24:55 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1USiH9-0006oY-0I for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:24:55 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.4]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MaGNa-1U8zYZ42QK-00JtF0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:24:28 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2013 06:24:26 -0000
Received: from p54BB2853.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.2.117]) [84.187.40.83] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 18 Apr 2013 08:24:26 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Fpq4fwTEFQv58xeOWFzRDKit4lrEwN3Fk7HfJ7p LJL/3N1MvcEaN3
Message-ID: <516F918C.4070702@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:24:12 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <DB8598D0-7AD8-4A90-806B-E4C7B65118D7@mnot.net> <516F76CB.20406@treenet.co.nz> <20130418060211.GC13063@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20130418060211.GC13063@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.339, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1USiH9-0006oY-0I 4c6bd62b34e3459b0ce8afb15272668a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: BWS
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/516F918C.4070702@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17328
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 2013-04-18 08:02, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> ...
> Agreed, but on the other hand, requiring that some intermediaries that do
> not even use these fields to fix them can increase the risk of breaking
> something between the client and the server. And since many of them will
> not do it anyway, we'll end up with another MUST that is not respected,
> so probably a SHOULD would be more appropriate ?
> ...

That's my concern as well.

My gut feeling is that we want BWS to be fixed during the message 
parsing, but not necessarily during the field value parsing.

We probably can fix that in prose (preferred). Alternatively, we could 
add yet another ABNF rule (this might negatively affect a few specs in 
the RFC Editor Queue, though).

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email