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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 19 December 2012 07:17 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 B3A8521F8A53 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:17:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.847, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 24WM-NOn9r6w for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:17:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DA121F8948 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:17:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TlDtf-0000OU-2R for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:16:55 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:16:55 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TlDtf-0000OU-2R@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1TlDtZ-0000MX-TH for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:16:49 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1TlDtY-0001Sl-KC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:16:49 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.33.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88B58509B8; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:16:24 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20121219071216.GC21050@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:16:21 +1100
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <762DC444-03E3-43DE-81B1-BC1A25238C68@mnot.net>
References: <12F24972-5720-40B7-BF17-3A1955752199@mnot.net> <20121212065733.GG14722@1wt.eu> <25303AF7-C291-4852-A0DE-AF758B919491@mnot.net> <20121219071216.GC21050@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.290, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TlDtY-0001Sl-KC 019cf8c6b14e7511736ae4ab0118a845
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #409: is parsing OBS-FOLD mandatory?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/762DC444-03E3-43DE-81B1-BC1A25238C68@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/15786
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 19/12/2012, at 6:12 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:50:21AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> On 12/12/2012, at 5:57 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So what do you think about the following change on top of yours :
>>> 
>>> """
>>> If a received protocol element is processed, the recipient MUST be able to
>>> parse any value that would match the ABNF rules for that protocol element,
>>> excluding only those rules not applicable to the recipient's role, and those
>>> rules whose names begin with "obs-" (e.g., obs-fold). However, the recipient
>>> MUST be able to detect the rules it cannot parse and MUST reject such
>>> messages.
>>> """
>> 
>> 
>> I'm OK with that, except that your MUST can be read to apply to those that
>> aren't applicable to the recipient's role (unintentionally, I think).
> 
> I don't completely understand what you meant, I'm sorry :-)
> 
> Do you mean that it can be read that it is mandatory for the recipient to
> understand the whole language even if it's not interested in it ?


Pretty much. It may not be a practical concern, but it doesn't read well. I think it can be fixed editorially.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/