Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 11 March 2016 06:07 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 8A03D12E0B7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 22:07:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 UPcvDhWb0iaE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 22:07:38 -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 E205B12D521 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 22:07:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aeGA9-0003QP-EY for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:03:01 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:03:01 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aeGA9-0003QP-EY@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aeGA4-0003Pd-Dt for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:02:56 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aeGA2-0007u9-AF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:02:55 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A025322E1FA for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 01:02:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F4E51882-71CE-4D21-AF8A-7D7BE1AEE29C@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:02:26 +1100
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.227, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aeGA2-0007u9-AF f9892167d37c45f58cbcb08ccbce5de8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/F4E51882-71CE-4D21-AF8A-7D7BE1AEE29C@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31235
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>
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-http-jfv> We've talked about this draft several times, and it appears there's decent interest in it. We also have external groups (e.g., W3C WebAppSec) starting to experiment with this format for headers. My personal observation is that because of their open syntax, minting new HTTP headers is difficult to do correctly, even with the advice we gave in RFC7231. Providing a framework like this one can help guide authors, as well as ease the burden of reviewers. Julian has confirmed that he is willing to continue editing, and our AD is aware of this work. The only thing I'll add is that people shouldn't get too hung up on the exact syntax currently proposed; based on our discussions, it might change significantly. There's already been support for it demonstrated at the meetings we've talked about it. Any additional thoughts? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv Mark Nottingham
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv Mark Nottingham
- Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv Mark Nottingham
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv Willy Tarreau
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv Cory Benfield