Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Mon, 17 October 2016 21:03 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 D0492129468 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, 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 WXJs-BReoe58 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
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 8FCD8129464 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bwF0N-0007MB-N8 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:59:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:59:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bwF0N-0007MB-N8@frink.w3.org>
Received: from bart.w3.org ([193.51.208.80]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1bwF0J-0007Kv-WF for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:59:28 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1bwF0C-0008Of-5Y for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:59:21 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u9HKwBRA031017; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:58:11 +0200
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:58:11 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Matt Menke <mmenke@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20161017205811.GA31012@1wt.eu>
References: <CAEK7mvoXqyX3cADJytjU+C158EULgPLbzAb5kiUN=8WWxhi29Q@mail.gmail.com> <78301.1476524467@critter.freebsd.dk> <CABkgnnXw7WacnMf4Nsx-drktn__V4afK61G67A5bT5SSdqaucQ@mail.gmail.com> <79226.1476546544@critter.freebsd.dk> <CAEK7mvoXNf_KdpQhj2kwiRLaHm-C1BtjduUgy1cwOnCQ265yzg@mail.gmail.com> <48270.1476737438@critter.freebsd.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48270.1476737438@critter.freebsd.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.575, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: bart.w3.org 1bwF0C-0008Of-5Y 0459b67ee77a11833daadaf63ea6c16e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161017205811.GA31012@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32616
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 Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:50:38PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <CAEK7mvoXNf_KdpQhj2kwiRLaHm-C1BtjduUgy1cwOnCQ265yzg@mail.gmail.com>
> , Matt Menke writes:
> 
> >I don't think it needs to be that complicated.  If there's just a prefix
> >before all types (Say '#' for numbers, '&' for times, and '!' for
> >identifiers), we don't have to exclude the prefix characters from
> >identifiers, do we?
> 
> True, if we prefix all values we can avoid that problem.
> 
> However, that would kill one of the major attraction of CS:  That
> 19 RFC723x headers already conform to it.

This is actually a very good point that we constantly need to keep in mind
and which is the best justification for not using prefixes on field names.

Willy