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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 11 January 2016 04:53 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 90E021A86DD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:53:56 -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 iw-LUC97Zwdr for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:53:55 -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 CDD501A86E4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aIUPq-0007aG-OQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 04:49:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 04:49:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aIUPq-0007aG-OQ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aIUPm-0007ZZ-FJ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 04:49:10 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aIUPi-0006ga-Ih for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 04:49:08 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1D6522E1F4; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:48:40 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <56927B69.6000504@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:48:38 +1100
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <87E02B20-BB19-4933-A6E5-9839F31A8D4B@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>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.361, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aIUPi-0006ga-Ih fed0a8a5be0af82bebff6e84c39353cc
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/87E02B20-BB19-4933-A6E5-9839F31A8D4B@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30879
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 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...


> 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?



--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/