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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 11 January 2016 08:33 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 1A5901A87AF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:33:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 bD5KMNnSBL8d for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:33:11 -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 B1E2D1A87A5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:33:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aIXr0-0001ES-P1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:29:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:29:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aIXr0-0001ES-P1@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) 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 1aIXqx-0001Db-AN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:29:27 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aIXqv-0004v8-Jj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:29:26 +0000
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.74.71]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MLunc-1aHSzE2RBM-007hmz; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:28:48 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <CALaySJK5fYy_JCv0Y7Fs3QpPk95fUxyt272JMc-QUpVKO7_gJA@mail.gmail.com> <56853BCC.7030005@gmx.de> <CALaySJJxbDX0m2XurAXe0+DoC4iDam8CXOv4B3Gr1+NGk+Nzow@mail.gmail.com> <56855F2E.6020300@gmx.de> <CALaySJJuX7geSJE99Wua_cD_O-5ek6p4uuG=OB2nbkrnYHQrYw@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB1374B3703C8BBB1023F9F55D87FE0@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <56927B69.6000504@gmx.de> <87E02B20-BB19-4933-A6E5-9839F31A8D4B@mnot.net> <56935445.7020903@gmx.de>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <569367C4.3030604@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:28:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56935445.7020903@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:EJamaSwY0mszHlV+cEMoeC+aRk5ngw3cvDaOOudVV7eVSFaALk5 6Dj2N4sdMScwIqgH+A84WvHi2UjS6nnkj+N0ptxY6LcATdSFQjxhhfwg/G4CDyx5iKqfWjD dizuhu9LNs20PggYQz5sn3qPQ4apYWw2Gu2NHNysz8Y/V10chEQA1dUBJAEfe3wkjphlFRY UzrVjN3VncWjIYgaKnpRg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:xJN2lRzA5mw=:sZJXaw7uBoDySvy4NPubfu 0/CXWLJkJOeqOh0ToW85XZVNp/W1FCV7KZzsz9oKiIIIUmwd5/93LXHbP7JIp56d4VbvHDguh 9yKVvMnrerWse1WyLjh1zGCuvkY4uwCJwU4R+JxiqmiU/LShGW71mZZsAxEl9LmYTZ/Qjn8SR DlTkIZ20l8X9kEI6qAFBzLdvQbuWeV4LUS4HpQIpUDALU8cNIktFlcbOV+vu7kFl4Xjonvijo y9ceVVuH6pj+DzwRmqz9UY18BFmcjgQBzGqNgxPx99XBFYKKeyaFHG+8ZO8STKO2ZPJTZE9Bs Pc9x5m1VL6T9Uxm1JHiwNhU66sJdk13UvCnvBL5tH1xanY54l8YzumokBoHIkEgGgANQ1sAeK GBm7KxWw9aLoKpg1YvV96Cg3+LvSX26up3iZs7hct9Es80g4htyXEE/XQRYcq/0a74tFrvXUQ 4KtzTo4ir/HEYFQApQ06hlHNDOKvCugx20T9N6CfwmoET3c34rnp4vOQfyBtqFywkB2RJEFdm 4ZCjB2Me5M5VbWSkmYJAxzoy7g1mcHpi/2frNlcftsgU0Mol97+Y2Ezqjq9eh8eezliMHy1He 2w6An/a+G5VYdS0bYK3KNSxa99nkXr88ChDF7wpO/XnpOPUP6Im40gwJ/XyX/2Y3JleSA2jHJ gUVsjHulN/wTYUB/jDQIW436zqK2uqYXqtJLjwXAlU5rO6NDLidlGKl4YBRwaBlbOn9tH7qbD 7lCrhzc13MLHeEk1z7EbM2pXjPzyH4LinRKYhmEKv0cKOI0CNn4FM0PdjFrJDVUsU/om/3RDg W3/TNSd
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=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.425, 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: maggie.w3.org 1aIXqv-0004v8-Jj e7726d40d750ee43adf9c283dbbd653e
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/569367C4.3030604@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30882
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 2016-01-11 08:05, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
>>> On 2015-12-31 18:54, Mike Bishop wrote:
>>>> "persist" could as easily be a toggle; either present or not, no
>>>> value.  However, the existing syntax doesn't permit that, so we
>>>> defined it to be =1.  In this situation, I don't see a problem with
>>>> hard-coding the value into the syntax.
>>>>
>>>> Fundamentally, the question is, "If I see persist=2, what should I
>>>> do with it?"  If I treat it as an unrecognized value, then it's
>>>> equivalent to not being present, which may or may not be what the
>>>> sender wanted.  That means whoever is defining persist=2 would
>>>> probably have done better to define morerefinedpersist=1-4, and
>>>> leave persist intact for legacy clients to understand.
>>>>
>>>> If you're going to have to define a new token for other values to be
>>>> useful anyway, let's formalize that and hard-code that there's only
>>>> one acceptable value for this one.
>>>
>>> Sounds right to me.
>>>
>>> Any objections to changing this to simply "1"?
>>
>> That seems reasonable...
>
> Ack.
> ...

-> 
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/bc0e722fc4340f89b7b2e7029f5e2c4be00d84cd>

Best regards, Julian