Re: #429: Multiple header fields with the same field name - unwritten assumption about quoted commas in values?

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sun, 20 January 2013 07:18 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 7CF0A21F8503 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 23:18:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 oHd-av0WFboE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 23:18:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51DE21F84F8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 23:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Twp8c-0001PF-Rx for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 07:16:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 07:16:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Twp8c-0001PF-Rx@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Twp8W-0001MQ-Ja for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 07:16:12 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Twp8V-0001lW-6Q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 07:16:12 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r0K7FHNL014033; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:15:17 +0100
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:15:17 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Piotr Dobrogost <p@ietf.dobrogost.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130120071517.GG6838@1wt.eu>
References: <C6A43E78-4F94-4FE3-A049-678555896FEC@mnot.net> <CAK3OfOiS1UPqvsk5H8RWUKyw8MB=uykeMkXzZoffm6732=UjMg@mail.gmail.com> <86DE887E-B189-40D2-A867-C81CFB0434AB@mnot.net> <CAK3OfOiWzJqHr8VSzn6WFcWRGJEr59XiUyh+wGTDnf1ydVL=3g@mail.gmail.com> <1390897A-59CF-451B-B3CD-BB39906BDACD@mnot.net> <CAK3OfOg17M3LTPwFJXFuHrq4AZh505hq27xoeVwJsPTvA7_3aw@mail.gmail.com> <A9D632AF-448F-4B5A-B3A0-33CF9BFDC3B4@gbiv.com> <20130116065254.GA12426@1wt.eu> <CACuKZqH226evA0v26aop5oXtbjm8m=ePFip=1roJmrA3tygrGg@mail.gmail.com> <CA0A2954-F3D6-4255-A38F-3BD5D7E0FE0C@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA0A2954-F3D6-4255-A38F-3BD5D7E0FE0C@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=-2.109, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Twp8V-0001lW-6Q 4a096d439354a9a21b33e84a83668493
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #429: Multiple header fields with the same field name - unwritten assumption about quoted commas in values?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130120071517.GG6838@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16037
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 Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 01:53:39PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Now <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/429>.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer to stay on Roy's side which consists in saying
that when a compliant message is passed to an intermediary, the output is
a compliant message, and when a non-compliant message is passed, the
output is indetermined.

Otherwise we'll have to document all possible corner cases, which will
result in even worse implementations givent that we won't be exhaustive.

Probably that all the trouble comes from the obligations made to senders,
with senders sometimes being intermediaries. I've been bothered by this
in the past. So the point above at least would solve the issue for them :
they have to emit clean things but if they forward stupid things, well,
it's the other side's fault.

Regards,
Willy