Re: ABNF related feedback to: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 11 January 2016 07:10 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9051A8720 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:10:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 zYVV6hMJD6Ud for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:10:40 -0800 (PST)
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 041701A0451 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aIWYX-0006Me-QD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:06:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:06:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aIWYX-0006Me-QD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aIWYS-0006Lo-Mq for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:06:16 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1aIWYO-0002sD-NJ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:06:15 +0000
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.74.71]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M24ap-1a2NhU44aZ-00u4Jj; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:05:36 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <CALaySJK5fYy_JCv0Y7Fs3QpPk95fUxyt272JMc-QUpVKO7_gJA@mail.gmail.com> <56853BCC.7030005@gmx.de> <CALaySJJxbDX0m2XurAXe0+DoC4iDam8CXOv4B3Gr1+NGk+Nzow@mail.gmail.com> <56855F2E.6020300@gmx.de> <CALaySJJuX7geSJE99Wua_cD_O-5ek6p4uuG=OB2nbkrnYHQrYw@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB1374B3703C8BBB1023F9F55D87FE0@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <56927B69.6000504@gmx.de> <87E02B20-BB19-4933-A6E5-9839F31A8D4B@mnot.net>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <56935445.7020903@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:05:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87E02B20-BB19-4933-A6E5-9839F31A8D4B@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Kymc5GgaHRsq/pP75+m7fagtWpHaRg+K7k/qBTLEr0/1ysJEk6P eJXU6EAEpo8gUmioXsxckYBlysXrR5HfN0pjKSIlPUEKP6ralxW0zZwbusN6hn/72qG44nq uhP63eOOS0g6cUF4bE4kNc40Smws2kGaGpbEhk+v88DcraTfyOySyGqrdzMFX8BpSKiERpg S8Am0bszV5j3eJYhi3KBQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:xU8dN9WMv+E=:k1AelGbKPxRfLL000bWZnH QnL+vQ7zdwuBQoErPSSs51cYOh8B+BDRCJy3mulqWI/V6byaQUu3X67XxoDzSgDA22NgdLEv5 CXfBEVTQSHLThlgiXxBVp2KBfP7ihait5X5OUtw0ULSqJJCjidBFPen8KSnWgCMGo4oQAE7Rn 4/PYfM+jz07nyKYyEJzFiiQPL1CozeR3rnTf4QLn0EpI7b2+Hrpf73Yo3oZNptdrT30lorGQ6 qZ5LWOHZ+Zx6COI2Xo+TG/jL8a1b+vkosfoCNIzHHw3CeJ7Ln4xnmkTYUGDGlUzRoB/79StJh KgLKS7nRJWgJ8mOqY4cidvKJl9jmGCCu7lhgYA11m2Bwqgl/WJ0pA0Zosjbt69IxbPVt+QOrZ y4r+fwwPCSE1QKS95xMdvTRrlVK4XaV5I9Dk1k6RKP7FnCbRx37Yc8zpdhGz6oL//G+tev7My d5U/4/VW8FtJYCWB8F9Zc1hAQpeJEuRcPCDauBqf9P1PWCB/xrWexPt3tmBdQsbsNvEnilJau GcbY4bQyTyqIO8o/0hue+OPEANjjI+zlQgmwMq7SrFe1Dw9ufFW8QacTe4nvPVLDyEJFhYAKE VOh4DRWYVP4ry8MdHqU+AKdJC6d9PgEyONpKenk9UAp7yBWYK6c3oIhcGlnwzymcXH5Cb1hXz ddcvijvXQDpAGbpNB+JU6vp9/YdfhKfJPZZ6sA8r71J7Axwz8pkRjTcYtSthdlZTpPiS+J4eW lN/zXmN0tPOSGl4Imar3setYr7oAaLN/cHfA+gj6ns+oIfaQ75yxbw8zwNrFqin/9nZXVMSfm A4ZYAhn
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.425, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1aIWYO-0002sD-NJ 01d5204e8d0e0291f69aa2ba3d4da4fc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ABNF related feedback to: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/56935445.7020903@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30880
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 2016-01-11 05:48, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 2:40 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-12-31 18:54, Mike Bishop wrote:
>>> "persist" could as easily be a toggle; either present or not, no value.  However, the existing syntax doesn't permit that, so we defined it to be =1.  In this situation, I don't see a problem with hard-coding the value into the syntax.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, the question is, "If I see persist=2, what should I do with it?"  If I treat it as an unrecognized value, then it's equivalent to not being present, which may or may not be what the sender wanted.  That means whoever is defining persist=2 would probably have done better to define morerefinedpersist=1-4, and leave persist intact for legacy clients to understand.
>>>
>>> If you're going to have to define a new token for other values to be useful anyway, let's formalize that and hard-code that there's only one acceptable value for this one.
>>
>> Sounds right to me.
>>
>> Any objections to changing this to simply "1"?
>
> That seems reasonable...

Ack.

>> Or do we want to change it to %s"t" (for "true")?
>
> That's a breaking syntactic change at a very late stage; what benefit does it have?

The intent was to have a more readable value. Are there any 
implementations out there this would break?

Best regards, Julian