Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 28 October 2013 19:22 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DC511E82BD; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R26Tm19qVgvM; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DEC11E81D0; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1VasOL-000FSQ-Qw; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:22:21 -0400
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:22:16 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24
Message-ID: <4F6568484E956ADBC46BEB16@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <526E73B8.90705@gmx.de>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20131027115007.07e32210@elandnews.com> <526E6DF4.4030509@gmx.de> <751EE3ED19D0A62BD858585C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <526E73B8.90705@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:22:34 -0000
--On Monday, October 28, 2013 15:24 +0100 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > John, > > that change would make almost every HTTP/1.1 code ever written > non-compliant. > > And yes, it would have been nice if a same date format would > have been chosen back then. Julian, I don't know enough of the issues in enough detail to argue this, and won't. My goal is only to be sure the question has been asked. My understanding is that the HTTPbis work is a rather major revision with at least some cases for which "get it right" is more important that complete backward compatibility, especially if there is a clear migration path. All of the usual arguments for that are relevant, especially the ones that focus on how many implementations and pages are likely to be created in the future relative to those that exist today. Here, the clear migration path would be a narrow and restrictive "send syntax" and a permissive "receive syntax" that requires support of all known older forms, _especially_ those that were recommended by HTTP 1.1. It has been rather longer than I think we expected, but it was clear when HTTP 1.1 was adopted (I am sure it was clear at least to the relevant ADs) that there could be incompatible changes in the future and that the concern should be a non-disruptive migration path, not absolute forward compatibility. That is one of the several reasons why the successor to HTTP 1.0 was identified as HTTP 1.1, not HTTP 2. This sort of change would still make HTTP 1.1 implementations non-compliant with HTTP 2.0, but that is ok -- they still comply with HTTP 1.1 and I hope no one is going to claim that all HTTP 1.1 implementations are non-compliant with HTTP the day HTTP 2.0 is published. If the WG has considered these options and rejected them after an open discusssion, please ignore the comment/ suggestion. > And yes, it would have been nice if a same date format would > have been chosen back then. Yes, even for the mail header syntax that inspired the current form and that predates the web by more than a decade. But that was before there was an ISO Standard, few of us were worried about the year 2000 transition, etc. My practical concern is that, as we internationalize more, those perfectly well-specified ASCII month and day names will get mapped, by implementations who consider the local (and sometimes paying) customers far more important than any standard, into local names that no one else can read. That would be fine if the local forms stayed local, but we have lots of experience, including with email, to indicate that they will leak and cause at least user confusion if not interoperability problems. So, from my point of view, this isn't about introducing an incompatibility with something that one merely regrets not being done differently. It is rather more about what might be the last chance to get it right and, in the process, eliminate completely predictable future confusion and interoperability problems. best, john john
- APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics… S Moonesamy
- obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of d… Julian Reschke
- Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review … John C Klensin
- Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review … Julian Reschke
- IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-ht… Julian Reschke
- content inspection in absence of media type, was:… Julian Reschke
- Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review … John C Klensin
- Re: content inspection in absence of media type, … S Moonesamy
- Re: content inspection in absence of media type, … Julian Reschke
- Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review … Amos Jeffries
- Re: content inspection in absence of media type, … Barry Leiba
- Re: IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-iet… S Moonesamy
- Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review,… S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Julian Reschke
- Re: content inspection in absence of media type, … S Moonesamy
- Re: IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-iet… Julian Reschke
- Re: content inspection in absence of media type, … Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: content inspection in absence of media type, … S Moonesamy
- RE: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Larry Masinter
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Henry S. Thompson