Re: JFV and Common Structure specifications

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 22 November 2016 08:10 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 666DE129474 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:10:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 kun8qZlSlBTO for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:10:20 -0800 (PST)
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 36F11129455 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c965x-0006SZ-SW for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:06:25 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:06:25 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c965x-0006SZ-SW@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1c965r-0006QV-Kq for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:06:19 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1c965l-0004cw-MB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:06:14 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AF4B22E1F3; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 03:05:49 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <65242.1479800991@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:05:46 +1100
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E5207840-A825-43B5-B42F-6C56314EA703@mnot.net>
References: <3A206EA7-57FB-4913-BC08-445BD2EFA783@mnot.net> <CABkgnnV8=2_sR-B-6e9Haxi+4M4DF4V7f3CWCVvXDHNN_SkTKw@mail.gmail.com> <98329.1479720181@critter.freebsd.dk> <CABkgnnVqH6TPi0OJ5iecYBj2gRich+DMLnxxQJcw9Qn6n-JPBA@mail.gmail.com> <65242.1479800991@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.629, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 1c965l-0004cw-MB bfcfe6c29c1e2be22d9361da38d8a94c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: JFV and Common Structure specifications
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E5207840-A825-43B5-B42F-6C56314EA703@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32955
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 22 Nov. 2016, at 6:49 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> 
> Also: We should deliver tools, not policies.

[ personal response ]

This phrase is starting to lose meaning for me, as it seems like it could be used as a critique of most any decision about a specification that's out of favour. 

E.g., given that headers themselves are constrained (effectively, a list of tuples with semantics around combination, naming, etc.), should we remove the "policy" from them and make it a bucket of bytes? Or is that too focused on a policy of byte-based computing?

The insistence of a linear interpretation of time implied by discussions around dates is likewise a policy discussion. Let's not even get into numbers...

Adding features like recursion has a real cost in complexity, cognitive load, bugs and security. All of these things add friction to a standard, and can make or break it. That's not to say that we shouldn't do it, but dismissing these concerns with a catchphrase isn't going to be sufficient (at least for me).

Cheers,

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