Re: Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-14: (with COMMENT)

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 18.06.2020 10:35, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> ...
> No, I am simply noting that by using structured field values your implicitly
> restriciting the syntax from what RFC 7230 allows for field names, which is:
>
> header-field   = field-name ":" OWS field-value OWS
> field-name     = token
> where token is:
>
>       token          = 1*tchar
>
>       tchar          = "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "*"
>                      / "+" / "-" / "." / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~"
>                      / DIGIT / ALPHA
>                      ; any VCHAR, except delimiters
>
>
> However Structure field's token definition is this:
>
>
>     sf-token = ( ALPHA / "*" ) *( tchar / ":" / "/" )
>
> Thus, Client hints will not be able to do express all possible field-names that
> may exist in HTTP.
>
>  From that I was asking:
>
> Where there any discussion of this restriction?
> Where there any concerns raised with this, or are all okay with it?
>
> I personally don't have an issue with it as all registered HTTP headers will
> fitt in this more restricted syntax.
> ...

FWIW, an alternative approach would be to allow both sf-token and
sf-string here (I'm not saying it is needed, but it would certainly
resolve the issue).

Best regards, Julian