Re: ABNF related feedback to: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 03 January 2016 13:45 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BAE1ACCDC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jan 2016 05:45:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 d5qeIzvgxFB3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jan 2016 05:45:47 -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 DCA861ACCE9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jan 2016 05:45:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aFito-00083H-SA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:40:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:40:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aFito-00083H-SA@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aFitl-00082W-DT for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:40:41 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aFitj-0005zH-Bh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:40:40 +0000
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([84.187.45.53]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MSIf1-1aeF7G3lFb-00TYXw; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:40:06 +0100
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <CALaySJK5fYy_JCv0Y7Fs3QpPk95fUxyt272JMc-QUpVKO7_gJA@mail.gmail.com> <56853BCC.7030005@gmx.de> <CALaySJJxbDX0m2XurAXe0+DoC4iDam8CXOv4B3Gr1+NGk+Nzow@mail.gmail.com> <56855F2E.6020300@gmx.de>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <568924B8.3000402@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:40:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56855F2E.6020300@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:zFq4fAGCKJlBgz/jWc/WwawXp8R3YDOtyBz9YmNSiiCyyIcPNxx 96oq/SnKUbdovqlhjJSgqlfrxLaRQVRFkTIz1SCgSSSG3NxhzaQ07o+5Z8a27N8b2ywb+7R 0hrD2398HnKWfW4inorDmR/e/w90YHDY7fw0jU8eiJJs/QwHm/QJu8oJNdQEjMnI8XMZSho lUn7uBUgpu6NcL7/3J7bw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:m8TfMPPwBS0=:c4/q3ZpTfGg1Zw6mRqXhwg Tv1ZBmnvCU8I05riNA5auD76+z3uR/SgCu/V+pnuOQMAuH5VWLMpAc2NH8pCa72n+eRxY34a4 7Atb8xg2KCbFrVYE6hNsGExm+F+q5Kq0WclJFfKYfnhlsPU3yU7H4xEm8pIpzhDkV9hPPjWV2 s2eND1rqNICKQJFGXLI7kg/sVEKU0GFddJC5CqjUzB3wTmP4y9Es+pzww/g/k+kQsA+S11SbX vvLvqsUi3IJRvn0167lEuZJgJ7H0+plgFwPAPK/TbPeXSquR+MpVSarTw9R7CXRaY7OAoxx2D u5NJrkrrfxPzZtE5+y3URwAWO8TerO20gP+YyXIIqWa9laud0C0sWh0pErNPS0VqSo7qYKMZY ErxaTo1Gmx5Z/wwxgv9PbuxdyvkAVIr611T6TM/r509TUXFrSVIgWXZ9iS39QQb6iNqYjd+BN +h3pduOzbgMrS8ZhrW0olANsJ6l62GpvyS84NKPH9np1AE6YKl3gFFmIAT/6fgkuRwXmVF6Im VvNsGyV9KK8JNR3uvjnBhAGkOPngJhy/EzSkQFRyU/nYObVa6SYwlQvFQx13NRGm2rBwzKHuu fQqvtkj0NsUtJRbRKLA65ssYSwCUpYQCgksewZnVZXtzu5BKPUhJLe+wUGyqf7N8ugvafpGEY 65iVsYDR4htU+2Veu4cX5S7UEfj1l+cUjk8TriO1fqPYjqvlx+dN7It1zoT+Sto3XVix7ByZr zpbRxEcbMdTCZ0BU+N1ExXJzpc9bL5cWew46VDPmS810Jqneeq3smEv+MChKTDVOj/TVEpmbU SxTtaZl
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.570, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1aFitj-0005zH-Bh 360443c0370936b50de2730a4b3a8501
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ABNF related feedback to: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/568924B8.3000402@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30840
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 2015-12-31 18:00, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2015-12-31 17:38, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Hi, Julian, and thanks for the quick reply on a holiday extended weekend.
>
> Dito :-)
>
>> ...
>>>> -- Section 3 --
>>>> Please consider using RFC 7405 for the ABNF for "clear".
>>>
>>> That would replace
>>>
>>>    clear         = %x63.6C.65.61.72; "clear", case-sensitive
>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>>    clear         = %s"clear"; case-sensitive
>>>
>>> (and add a dependency to the ABNF extension).
>>>
>>> I'm not super-excited about this notation, and it seems we would be the
>>> first ones to actually use it (implying lack of validation tools etc).
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>
>> It's a small thing, and it's up to the working group, of course.  I
>> would prefer the change, because (1) I think it makes it more
>> readable, and (2) we have put 7405 on the Standards Track, so we
>> should use it.  It wouldn't be a bad thing for us to break ground on
>> it.
>
> I might invest a bit of time to teach bap (Bill's ABNF Parser) to accept
> this; and once I can validate it I could be convinced to actually use it.

Done in <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2749>...

So what does the rest of the WG think? Should we use this bleading-edge 
ABNF feature?

>>>> -- Section 3.1 --
>>>> For the persist ABNF, why 1DIGIT, and not just DIGIT?  Or, for that
>>>> matter, why not simply "1" ?  Other specifications might then add other
>>>> values using << persist =/ "2" >>, for example.
>>>
>>> I believe the intent was that new values do not imply changing the
>>> parser
>>> (which would be implied by changing the ABNF), but simply would allow
>>> new
>>> values here.
>>
>> Three questions here, really, bundled into one:
>>
>> 1. Why "1DIGIT", rather than "DIGIT"?  Purely editorial, of course...
>> what's the benefit of using the "1"?
>>
>> 2. Why does "persist" have to be digits at all?  I'm generally not a
>> fan of unnecessarily coding concepts into numbers, rather than using
>> short words.  If it's necessary (or useful), that's fine.  I don't see
>> why here.
>
> I'll pass this to those who suggested the syntax :-)
> ...

Thinking if it some more...:

1DIGIT vs DIGIT: it's really just a matter of style, I'm ok with 
changing it.

Digits: I believe it was inspired by "DNT", where of course the same 
question could be asked.

Patrick: is Firefox shipping with support for "persist" already?

Best regards, Julian