Re: Multiple header fields with the same field name - unwritten assumption about quoted commas in values?

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-01-15 16:23, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
> Le 15 janv. 2013 à 21:21, Julian Reschke a écrit :
>>> - If merging, merge only those fields which are known to be safe to merge ie. those, which can be parsed after merging. Also, if the top most production in BNF specyfing field's value is #(values) it does NOT mean the field is safe for merging although this seems to be implied by the statement in the spec starting with "Multiple header fields with the same field name MUST NOT be sent (...)"
>>
>> If a spec uses the list production but then doesn't allow proper parsing then that spec is buggy (such as Set-Cookie).
>
>
> I still have very hard time to understand how the statement "MUST NOT be sent " is working, if it seems good to in fact not enforce it. Should it be dropped?

What exactly do you think should be dropped?

Note: current text in editor's copy is:

"A sender MUST NOT generate multiple header fields with the same field 
name in a message unless either the entire field value for that header 
field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)] or the 
header field is a well-known exception (as noted below)." -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.3.2.2>

Best regards, Julian