IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ABNF and Structured fields

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Fri, 29 April 2022 07:14 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 457CDC15EE07 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ciMl3OSEFfak for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D13ADC159822 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1nkKnA-0000ht-LM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:11:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:11:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1nkKnA-0000ht-LM@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1nkKn8-0000gU-Rg for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:11:50 +0000
Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1nkKn7-0003EZ-LT for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:11:50 +0000
Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id o18so5130170qtk.7 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Vq4hIj62aaSk+uX6yeA3HtkIADXr59dR4fwgq2lmJEA=; b=eeFRc6T3/+LTKDkNtlZYwN1jl0Rm96GMp8uEWDD7/Q0q9AbgBChtFcUB8DyKo4q/3m IrYTwr7fRQeR5UMh/jhsyt/smoNa7ofmkJ5rQ0Aq6jPRkd3g1IBQ+JXQ30MQeqaMZ4tm Eu0xljERzIpV5/C4bGLP/7AcL/ZiHaza+cAHwM/RAzloRkIyFKn8k8guI5XnKy7SwtF4 g8yxPXvoUn/l1DB1tGK+vSvmLGp36/VpbZ85CyVLydS1svk/p/NQ3tYvCdFZ+PLnNHsO 5R5gbq9luneylP5geT7fNQ1czorkIjkYmyOdW7NK4Z3FxWLUyF1Nbq9YpSqQtDaQEK+3 uw8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vq4hIj62aaSk+uX6yeA3HtkIADXr59dR4fwgq2lmJEA=; b=RS+vJtxemub6C3yc3xWLt4PTyTBGBcmndqSNFERnLWiNsI6mOMaV0gsBjvpXZa6l8+ DZ20T74pEvcIJ8e6WcJAWZ3wl+8i0BumvnWLd0Yw8nTMFjLTQyoktNPrp7Co/ZtBs381 JbLWR5gKVavqHp7NobcY7EJ8/o4hfOrH+BbHRa7oITLamlgifSBNpNfvxwrD92qoQtrB 4WeqAogefg6vZP6RAhfMUe9el2Dv2NqBvserwvEMte28eQBrxOPSkHQ3LN2HYjuXUGlV A+d1DgNeIMqacGYim7b070bkkCpxc8bfZQ8JeU/QFGb5tU1FxJnfLsiM6UV48CtPQZeS kZbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gP5AAgM7p6AMnIXXzzVjFZb8eGEqKJehTDhU3ZdqZSq0499Bz pvfncQD3fCKSRCu3GlH4zAAHmyctJXDmubDZfUY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx+vSGnlPyPpKtp8x0mbSBfh57E8yTOyn7VUusc9EITW1XB6xTHZUi6lXIJVi/4q9STTE+5riBSC91KFwHhg0o=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5893:0:b0:2e1:c7f6:9992 with SMTP id t19-20020ac85893000000b002e1c7f69992mr25791149qta.23.1651216298824; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP9qbHV_5kHm2+7Xxq5sH=3mLE42Y8F9S5u=ytpcsUXy-h+QcQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP9qbHV_5kHm2+7Xxq5sH=3mLE42Y8F9S5u=ytpcsUXy-h+QcQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 08:11:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9ob0GyJpcWBa1wn9HdkLU5EqYGqi-a+BiyNnN0P5YhGxgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f055b305ddc5c063"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::833; envelope-from=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com; helo=mail-qt1-x833.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com domain=gmail.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1nkKn7-0003EZ-LT 2c217ec2adad61c481fec43ed4dc6382
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ABNF and Structured fields
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CALGR9ob0GyJpcWBa1wn9HdkLU5EqYGqi-a+BiyNnN0P5YhGxgg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40015
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hey Roberto,

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022, 07:27 Roberto Polli, <robipolli@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Which is the best way to describe structured fields? While there was a
> discussion on removing ABNF, I saw that in priorities there is still a
> reference to it.
>
> Is it fine then to use ABNF when describing SF?
>

We've been working on addressing this question in the HTTP style guide [1].

The style change were applied in the Priorities draft as part of AUTH48.
The following PR was merged into the branch with all AUTH48 changes, we
just won't see that as a rendered output until the RFC is published

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1977

I can work on an equivalent update PR to the Digest spec to align it to the
HTTP style guide.

Cheers
Lucas

[1] - https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email