IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-rfc54987bis

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Tue, 31 March 2015 14:44 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 329BC1ACD7A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 E49J8slYwDm8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:44:55 -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 2AABB1ACDC4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YcxLw-0005bN-Qb for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:41:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:41:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YcxLw-0005bN-Qb@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1YcxLl-0005aJ-51 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:41:05 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1YcxLh-0003nK-5z for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:41:05 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A733B8A2; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:40:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t2VEeaJu039088; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:40:37 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-reply-to: <1C7436D4-D1EF-454C-BC14-E8C00165AA2E@mnot.net>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <1C7436D4-D1EF-454C-BC14-E8C00165AA2E@mnot.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <39086.1427812836.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:40:36 +0000
Message-ID: <39087.1427812836@critter.freebsd.dk>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@phk.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.393, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YcxLh-0003nK-5z 8fee4ec4439d603e694226413e288d04
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-rfc54987bis
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/39087.1427812836@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29120
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>

--------
In message <1C7436D4-D1EF-454C-BC14-E8C00165AA2E@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
tes:

>We discussed this document in Dallas:
>  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-rfc5987bis>
>
>Based on the feedback received, I believe that we should adopt this
>document as a WG product, with a target of Proposed Standard.

Solving the problem:  Yes, good idea.

"Solving" it this way:  Bad idea.

First, we're worried about transmission times for HTTP so making
the charset selection per header-subfield is a horribly inefficient
way to solve the problem.

Second, do we really want to make it possible to have one subfield
of a header be KOIR8 and the next subfield be codepage 1251 ?

Third, are there *any* valid reasons to even allow other charsets
than ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8 from 2015 forward ?


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email