Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7870)

[Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:12:11AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> OK. I understand how you can read it that way, but it's quite contorted; I
> don't think the current text is unclear. Rewriting to remove the word
> 'exception' would imply that there are other situations where the message
> could be forwarded after rewriting, and that is undesirable.

This makes me think that for future versions of the spec, we should
probably keep in mind that some agents sometimes have to fix certain
parts before forwarding/processing them and that it might be useful
to orient various parts as "must not forward this or that unless fixed"
then have a special paragraph describing exactly what ought to be fixed,
i.e. how exactly to proceed to satisfy the exception that allows to
forward the message. It would more clearly an consistently differentiate
between what to check for and what to address in order for the message
to be forwarded. This would conveniently cover the various tricky parts
around duplicated C-L, T-E vs C-L, how to deal with Connection, header
folding, aggregation of multiple fields into a single one when a quote
is present, etc.

Cheers,
Willy