Re: Empty lists in Structured Headers (#781)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 14 May 2019 18:04 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 CCF2B120168 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 11:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 0UjPzWtYVRn7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 11:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C07ED120137 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2019 11:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hQbl8-0002OY-64 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 18:02:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 18:02:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hQbl8-0002OY-64@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1hQbl4-0002Nm-PE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 18:02:34 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1hQbl3-0003Im-3K for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 18:02:34 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1557856917; bh=8gjL/5L5WXosdbmohc7xbNqBxHPswiJBE/MtPKv6hxc=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=P4gVbtvUpOyTgppq8xOGB5tBmCx2E7YWq83ctwPe+p1Sn3e6Xc8E0ZC4Rp1CnqwEx ZeSFCrUB99hSITJu3dT8KIvDLfpm1aMFV45jVksmNVVVlo7GNyFzLVRIBwBWm2wlZF q5HUS4dR2T0E1v61XCGiMmMOxGaCqUUPbTEBsEXE=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.124] ([84.171.148.117]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M5QJJ-1hRRE824nd-001RiN; Tue, 14 May 2019 20:01:57 +0200
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <D99820F1-D169-468E-BA31-68AA710C3CC4@mnot.net> <B3BF258C-ECB2-4F07-83EF-2D491E236718@apple.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <290703d4-f00e-f905-3076-32b43798cf33@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 20:01:58 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B3BF258C-ECB2-4F07-83EF-2D491E236718@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:biL2ozkT11Q3p/QJyyeCOU4Yy//hjpTt8Yb7zZ6/dDMFNk1mz86 qoXYm7jEEUU84M1VSatQ37lVZrStDEusKu26M2zGtpAQBfxVSkZ5RjsoajMy8/YqV6Hc96y K3i2AMgkI054DAJ5zI8jTsBXNHmuxgD36SphaE/lBjuydbk/Y/Dv+ZdSknmrKDksBbjqK6R 9T+P/+ioB5RLGoE1pDkOA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:fEQjpnQk/ow=:BJMPYCnc8zvTZ7vOD9I+2D +MV44V8KoDzmiZBZ6qpmxzA3nwKaNRM+Nus4D1ypF+SwCV5ZvWrk1LYBYLZMQlmE1Gs+utY8s Sl4rxbL7KDxFO/Q7ehE5WfnA3xxnsOU69bKPmNSs7kt/TtbZB1u59eZLsYEihXR5cRKfViD7t llC0VemnSlA9cu7efkIwoJo/gCWsBmsoWmx3beItLYTtQJnVNkHeOguQ8w+nW4sv5gYZHWzo8 FzWPvO86YjlJ00bzly9qco+qt4DGzYY/xLsEClX+c2ujn18oo5kaqVXgO5uXeI9x/EchhzHri RJULmQd06TX1pc6e33CP44I27e7OmqEjU2lrDViRgy6mcE6NY2mC5sn7B3YhdDqoh8mDUe0Lr VkpBow+KasTLu+n0QPsyvbA8/UcIkjdIYvvSSOvSuUTrMSLZQMj7VKK0TztmsEaT9ODg7+nIq PqNgRZqVw3QkRv0Z4XYtYnKyuk1aTYumGGVk9i+Uky+02Grmcj+PuhKR/VQ/aduc+xUne48in t/pXs8m9h9p4MWEMGLXsd7ge1k7Fi1Vqq4Q3JnrPdPdq/y8OYSy7M0X/13KZcrm1UDNWqr0A4 T0qXyag/tQNpbWNhk8RFu3wtOhzDA0U0setfdG8NBF5sTIUhrCU5+chQGv0dpf3lOss/HoWuz EuD/SlF1/HRc9rXY9fSxBo8uhKsaFTbJ8Cp5th3GeVUcpDk8yxpw4N1nKQ4S1fF4IoqIvQCMF 1cGmoM8O5a/iN9Yq4iFsvN5K8Ym7WHmndITmFiNJuMZNa0ujUPo0EbepcU+GJsQGBaHtNka2s Y7j55B507ADKWIBLattY5XVF7R/7vnkrF1cQu7kchVRUHlR9abR/WjiSjxErfY14IrGGNsbMc 7KeXMc7jDPKew3yVkAryiTOMsTD5G944wgmJXxDleFR3WVZve7SwRo5ZOhid7vUDjIyWk1Hs5 48S8SVJ6D2w==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.351, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hQbl3-0003Im-3K 34e36616eb2348f53f2d346a3a7602af
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Empty lists in Structured Headers (#781)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/290703d4-f00e-f905-3076-32b43798cf33@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36639
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 14.05.2019 19:46, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Thanks for the lively discussion we had on this topic! However, it looks like the conversation has petered out. As a working group, we should come to some consensus on the best way forward for this issue.
>
> I'd like to ask everyone to reply with which option they prefer of the of following, so we can get a sense of the group's opinion:
>
> A. Leave the document as is, not defining empty header values for SH (as requested by the editors). As noted on the list, this can allow future revisions to add support.
> B. Define empty header values for SH (as the issue requests).
> C. Do not allow empty header values for SH, but add formal text to the document explaining how to handle empty values.
>
> Please evaluate these based on what you think will help us converge and ship this document, and note that this is deciding how we define formal Structured Headers, not all or previous HTTP headers.
>
> Best,
> Tommy (chair hat on)

B is my preference. C would be helpful if we can't do B.

Best regards, Julian