Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] http: syntax fixes for quic Alt-Svc parameter (#3059)

Peter Wu <notifications@github.com> Mon, 23 September 2019 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7822120047 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RRfi3MaQXehA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-9.smtp.github.com (out-9.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3C66120045 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-6b40fdd.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-6b40fdd.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.64]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618642603B7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:39:17 -0700
From: Peter Wu <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6UHMIAVS43P5S6CKN3S2MDLEVBNHHB3JI7X4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3059/c534326183@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3059@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3059@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] http: syntax fixes for quic Alt-Svc parameter (#3059)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d8957a51a892_45883fde0cecd96478628"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: Lekensteyn
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/Oqjf1X0VaBZd0rF-3cIUMudNBco>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:39:20 -0000

I can remove the additional unquoted token change and keep this PR purely as editorial fix. Before the PR, the current text does not have correct ABNF grammar.

I added the unquoted token variant since it is permitted (but not required) by the grammar at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7838#section-3
>    parameter     = token "=" ( token / quoted-string )

Since HTTP/3 over QUIC is not the only user of this Alt-Svc header, I can imagine that generic parsers are written such that they already understand the unquoted token value. Thus, adding support for this should not be an additional burden?

I have no strong opinion here. The additional CPU cost of handling both unquoted and quoted forms should be neglible. Disallowing the unquoted form is a restriction of the RFC 7838 grammar.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3059#issuecomment-534326183