Re: #409: is parsing OBS-FOLD mandatory?

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Wed, 12 December 2012 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 8F58F21E805F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:36:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.974
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.473, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-i43fH3VICl for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF87821E8045 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Titxj-0007CT-GB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:35:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:35:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Titxj-0007CT-GB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Titxb-0007BN-KZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:35:23 +0000
Received: from ip-58-28-153-233.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz ([58.28.153.233] helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1TitxT-00033x-Cy for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:35:22 +0000
Received: by treenet.co.nz (Postfix, from userid 33) id 4018FE6FFC; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:34:46 +1300 (NZDT)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:main.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:34:45 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <1D461B53-7FF5-41EB-A891-5B309F116DF0@gbiv.com>
References: <12F24972-5720-40B7-BF17-3A1955752199@mnot.net> <1D461B53-7FF5-41EB-A891-5B309F116DF0@gbiv.com>
Message-ID: <9fc627b0581a7a7c5b3d4d662fde6537@treenet.co.nz>
X-Sender: squid3@treenet.co.nz
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.2
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=58.28.153.233; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.449, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TitxT-00033x-Cy b400216c537b55b097c814c165a5849c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #409: is parsing OBS-FOLD mandatory?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/9fc627b0581a7a7c5b3d4d662fde6537@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/15772
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 13.12.2012 07:18, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 7:48 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/409>
>>
>> """
>> p1 2.5 Conformance and Error Handling says "...recipient MUST be 
>> able to parse any value that would match the ABNF rules..." yet 3.2.2 
>> only make parsing obs-fold a SHOULD. Which is it?
>> """
>>
>> Roy made a proposed edit to remove the MUST NOT generate and change 
>> the SHOULD parse to a MUST parse.
>>  <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2039>
>
> No, the text still says "Senders MUST NOT generate ...".  I only 
> changed
> the SHOULD parse to a MUST parse, because that was not part of the 
> prior
> decision and is inconsistent with the ABNF requirement below.
>
>> However, this has the effect of un-deprecating line folding; IIRC we 
>> added those requirements because folding is not interoperable.
>
> No, it has the effect of requiring that line-folding be parsed, which
> is required for backwards compatibility with 2616 senders.  However,
> I do not personally know of any senders that send obs-fold.
>

Squid has a few bug reports with traces involving obs-fold in headers. 
Usually associated with complaints or problems handling >64KB long 
headers, and the fold is almost always occuring in custom X-* headers 
from some user generated data that should have been in the entity 
anyway.

Amos