IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Working Group Last Call: Structured Headers for HTTP

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 25 February 2020 05:08 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 7C6643A09CC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:08:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=eufu3BC4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=YggeAf/y
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 NTSQKuHoop8o for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:08:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E6AF3A09CF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1j6SPT-0000cZ-Vk for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 05:05:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 05:05:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1j6SPT-0000cZ-Vk@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1j6SPN-0000bm-SM for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 05:05:25 +0000
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1j6SPM-00038o-5L for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 05:05:25 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844F721E29; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:05:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:05:11 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=k AEPWyeyPjy+afmdnPy31rsk2yfzBnHJkszJOSqtU7I=; b=eufu3BC4PnUKYTtOe jVDR5ZQLdxhG0dkMi4g70kx8d7GSguDyVodRg72bjRY61AwrxSP4gU8jVsb49Ho/ +qK+MfXRD+RW1XhvvWsixHIG53FejcjUZXSAKCkthQKTeCer9JZESMwiC44TGmsY FMPirkf/By8Tv2eD0gBqe6H4umkedd+7yx0xPJ7uZiQ45OWM4GAQzzglZ3MrP0h5 UGVKu/2vV8PRbhsknY4OjN6uhcksCr88ftgfhc1d3lyTy//g3jTlbszQFOUc+5Eq iNZSjUUwLHHllM8uwbb8dvsJJ4GRJ3RrPHjLBSzZLRbPy0p9y+1kNyp4z46DtCJ7 l4LKA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=kAEPWyeyPjy+afmdnPy31rsk2yfzBnHJkszJOSqtU 7I=; b=YggeAf/yUgaQyoa5xyANpYVJW9tv6RAISjljEk9wTMpM+BeH0kItjp5pH JGW0Oo5YkDprJ7Z/mYSv8x/sZKAM+UVJXp1Vg9FqdRzOYAh+Hq4TUNv73lOQSmJ0 TsWUV7tmm8Vo1++Ljn3Tck45+WOQbVPchVA4T2ziejDHKpzaTdaYPr9mdrIKSgib bmM7F5essaN2cGtKKqytvLa90SXfuTk3JlPAImrhm2QowIjHPclWoYtF2KUjhwPt uu8bWkety6lxeUsH7ykq3xq7/7Xv1hoRYi241UPffBHUJVqNmUOqQztSaZEpkTOA lnJLJEEs43vHKR1u3AllyrBC50UuQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:BqtUXooNNjMSh3N8hp7nDFCENudW0LWD9x1Ko39ryIQl587kHwVkgw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrledugdejlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeforghrkhcu pfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpe hmnhhothdrnhgvthenucfkphepudduledrudejrdduheekrddvhedunecuvehluhhsthgv rhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnh gvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:BqtUXsV40QAVb4WH5Saqbr1oAriXt21fRii2dHUDJaWZqgZSihd1PQ> <xmx:BqtUXnoAqXc9erJ3fq7WNtKKdyHGfD775dgECKTiQ8WhxNZJlGjZGg> <xmx:BqtUXoHxpA-Ubz5NVM9o2S6zX36-h31ADBED7_zGLVgplmDoSJVMUg> <xmx:B6tUXi6RvBkryNzaI91DZCwizM8ib8jyFmshGR1OYD-ESuhUtyNs_w>
Received: from macbook-pro.mnot.net (unknown [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 79F773060FE0; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:05:09 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <F9777B9B-2D5E-4A29-A6D4-F6273437057D@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 16:05:06 +1100
Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <80348D70-2ECF-42B7-9FF0-767CDE66DD1E@mnot.net>
References: <C295C393-9602-4D41-9071-30629605E349@apple.com> <1a733857-e621-2ace-ad9a-1e3d872acf25@gmx.de> <3B46D138-971F-4602-8E54-4EE903EA5F24@mnot.net> <5b050bce-4740-4d48-60d5-3ee5678326a9@gmx.de> <F9777B9B-2D5E-4A29-A6D4-F6273437057D@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.28; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1j6SPM-00038o-5L 8287929dd4e674a760ac5d0351379c61
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call: Structured Headers for HTTP
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/80348D70-2ECF-42B7-9FF0-767CDE66DD1E@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37385
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>


> On 25 Feb 2020, at 11:34 am, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> That said, I *do* agree that the value-less variant is nice for flags;
>> my question is why we ended up with special-casing this in parameters,
> 
> The bug has the history; basically there are a number of already-defined headers that have value-less parameters that previously failed parsing as SH. *If* we want to try to back-port them in the future, accommodating that seems important.

Also - experience with Cache-Status and Proxy-Status shows that it's really nice to have the value-less true. 

>> and also why we don't allow serialising with "true" value outside
>> parameters.

I'm not sure what you mean here...

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

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status