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

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Wed, 19 December 2012 07:15 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 018AC21F8A53 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:15:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, 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 Zh8Nb-XlwIjt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666D921F8985 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TlDpo-0004oS-Kv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:12:56 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:12:56 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TlDpo-0004oS-Kv@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1TlDpg-0004mz-Qv for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:12:48 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1TlDpf-0002bT-V6 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:12:48 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id qBJ7CGwh022661; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:12:16 +0100
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:12:16 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-ID: <20121219071216.GC21050@1wt.eu>
References: <12F24972-5720-40B7-BF17-3A1955752199@mnot.net> <20121212065733.GG14722@1wt.eu> <25303AF7-C291-4852-A0DE-AF758B919491@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <25303AF7-C291-4852-A0DE-AF758B919491@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.105, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TlDpf-0002bT-V6 bbec04f9d678abc5ed774bc29843d97b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #409: is parsing OBS-FOLD mandatory?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20121219071216.GC21050@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/15785
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>

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 ?

Willy