Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00 for general structured data

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 24 December 2016 07:12 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 3EDFC1294DF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:12:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, 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 tsbaT93b0Ei7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:12:16 -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 243E2127A90 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:12:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cKgRc-0008RS-6r for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 07:08:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 07:08:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cKgRc-0008RS-6r@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1cKgRO-0008Qc-2V for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 07:08:26 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1cKgRM-0004uV-A9 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 07:08:25 +0000
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.122.101]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MarNa-1c0OQ61pEY-00KSlY; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 08:07:36 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <CAK_TSXLJcDkUCpn5f79DBtnGjjPLtb1fEv_-Akfg4cPbboFVvg@mail.gmail.com> <38632.1482431937@critter.freebsd.dk> <35e612ec-5452-2fd3-358d-5285bcb5225d@gmx.de> <230C725C-1D6B-4E83-A9A4-A901BD4A0404@mnot.net>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Ian Clelland <iclelland@google.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@varnish-cache.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <b12fe972-836a-b3df-51a5-b5bc661e6c12@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 08:07:34 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <230C725C-1D6B-4E83-A9A4-A901BD4A0404@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:VWEoEGHgfzF/Da9sX8mZdeX0E0xmsytlD7VB5iB2tAnRQ9cYDST oSm1pxxgTpXdD49kC3KOycG5vjKaQDJUvtjo/3cUw/z316+d9W1O9sF94DvkPT+g6lBJ7lp S96Y41c2eqSffAw0Hx4KhrP0shYNSIJB/++CqLSxNQvM29yBSPbmBjZllCynZNZ8xSniIHr 0Up9TXL/j9jtn8MMBXnFA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:nT03I0Z2I8U=:1yajcNUv99k5xRKoXYWHZm 54bWTwLT/BkIb3cQy+zdyVgegQ6B9wsI4hfSaCCoYsmsZ05bkXvpKOu8PDmAjB01m3RnsAESY agneAtSf8cPmBfZ6QoCSTYjlw0lf+6p9BdrUMWHf/s7tB9GKKl7xP+RudZh00ouzclK3ibJYj JDLgswvxo6O/ePqtWO25LXooNmkH3lExhrw30DoaJ5fLV2a/gT/cQZclcYPOmmEfFqq04qIjy aqKSjTOMl0H9MH9dXP8lp4eB9ACc1NXL4gJCi8OcIN3rCLTtjjT9Xh0xnYJ6W0emOH/kyAnZH F3IMbaxv+NT2mfZ6kpaLRvf3w2e1VR1pSAUIQ0q9f2jEcfK6Mrevv7A394SN9zwsYEhkQEYGX 3lFVcsmCJ0yQzwNVYUYFWCDToulnK8epre6xnZDL5VkV6knBaE0Ako7kXEQubSbnkPaDs4qRW mI+YYqhgx1dNBHN1Hj8gHE6+wJqlvQLC2nlCjoItaNL1o2BVdT76OJ0tGVVUmlgOx0TbuUK3i xhgboKN7SnZDgcHKU7pngHHpLXdeoCyiWlx78wCss9nonrd1CJ/Jblp4kzHiOpMvwdlPwHgF4 pMS5GK3Y7xWIfT1f8/xmUICMXFyGzmYrvPnaP0nvDREoc27A0f3RfdtX+tJE7otCg24ZPg9i1 sFxFzshgeN7LtWXneEsz0axpQAWDt+sxQBjzD4lYLCSZGVvQtT39CGy96xVHz5YLV0nBBn5Sd muXNDbIs4W/h+Ijdfkx7LX2WejpDkLxHQ238h+kMsqAPWTPdPobr5tOgEFugC8Q/lRkTyM3JC ezSGOFF
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.15; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.256, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cKgRM-0004uV-A9 ff62fcf9e268b859316e69f493d74507
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00 for general structured data
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/b12fe972-836a-b3df-51a5-b5bc661e6c12@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33244
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 2016-12-23 19:16, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> On 23 Dec. 2016, at 12:39 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-12-22 19:38, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>> --------
>>> In message <CAK_TSXLJcDkUCpn5f79DBtnGjjPLtb1fEv_-Akfg4cPbboFVvg@mail.gmail.com>
>>> , Ian Clelland writes:
>>>
>>>> With JFV, I'd declare a policy with a header value like this:
>>>>
>>>> {"feature1": ["http://origin1","http://origin2"]], "feature2": ["http://origin3", "http://origin4"], "feature3": []}
>>>
>>>> Trying my best to shoehorn this structure into CS, I do notice that nothing
>>>> in the grammar or the text says that duplicate identifiers in an
>>>> <h1_element> aren't allowed, so I suppose I could write something like this:
>>>>
>>>>> feature1;o="http://origin1";o="http://origin2",feature2;o="http://origin3";o="http://origin4",feature3<
>>>
>>> That's how I would do it as well.
>>
>> Using identical parameter names sounds like a bad idea; I'm not aware of any header field that currently uses this format, and it also seems to contradict the "dictionary" data model.
>
> Link allows it, and IIRC some link relations take advantage of that (although I can't think of their names ATM).

<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc5988.html#rfc.section.5.3>:

"The relation type of a link is conveyed in the "rel" parameter's value. 
The "rel" parameter MUST NOT appear more than once in a given 
link-value; occurrences after the first MUST be ignored by parsers."

Best regards, Julian