Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "malformed" definition (#3352)
Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Fri, 17 January 2020 05:02 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 7E5671200D6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 21:02:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 HfrFoE7ReI8M for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 21:02:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE6ED120099 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 21:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 21:02:56 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1579237376; bh=tN1JK6vGPucrePFDvYoPspPFI6L+6RJnVjFnOUsIjwM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=lOevKsIGgRl4No4TDdp1AOaEC0cqBPZQZVTQIi77yyck1kJ9t8jfWcpaj2OvTK+ID N+a9l+/IuJ01p0nGZCnbbU/sUr5vxqAYlQxxLo5RZ850Wfqyx2CD4ONofD4flSQXIg sPaagB2rXbymEM1jBfqhDNS4e4+7NiVY7b5+x8n0=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZKMSMAPUNE4YRHXD54FZZH7EVBNHHCBV7VNU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3352/review/344364325@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3352@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3352@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "malformed" definition (#3352)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e2140009984_1af73fd8a90cd96c67498"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/aPoi5Vaq9L1ri5SuG8FHeo3fLlI>
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:03:00 -0000
MikeBishop commented on this pull request. Re-reading with fresh eyes, I see things to fix tomorrow. > @@ -450,15 +457,103 @@ field names MUST be converted to lowercase prior to their encoding. A request or response containing uppercase header field names MUST be treated as malformed ({{malformed}}). +Like HTTP/2, HTTP/3 does not use the Connection header field to indicate +connection-specific header fields; in this protocol, connection- specific Artifact of copying from 7540. > -those defined in {{!HTTP2}}. The restrictions on the use of pseudo-header -fields in Section 8.1.2 of {{!HTTP2}} also apply to HTTP/3. Messages which -are considered malformed under these restrictions are handled as described in -{{malformed}}. +the status code for the response. + +Pseudo-header fields are not HTTP header fields. Endpoints MUST NOT generate +pseudo-header fields other than those defined in this document, except as +negotiated via an extension; see {{extensions}}. + +Pseudo-header fields are only valid in the context in which they are defined. +Pseudo-header fields defined for requests MUST NOT appear in responses; +pseudo-header fields defined for responses MUST NOT appear in requests. +Pseudo-header fields MUST NOT appear in trailers. Endpoints MUST treat a +request or response that contains undefined or invalid pseudo-header fields as +malformed ({{malformed}}). This probably needs to be forcibly rewrapped -- obviously the editor's auto-wrapping was confused by the spacing. > + + ":path": + + : Contains the path and query parts of the target URI (the "path-absolute" + production and optionally a '?' character followed by the "query" + production (see Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of [RFC3986]). A request in asterisk + form includes the value '*' for the ":path" pseudo-header field. + + : This pseudo-header field MUST NOT be empty for "http" or "https" + URIs; "http" or "https" URIs that do not contain a path component + MUST include a value of '/'. The exception to this rule is an + OPTIONS request for an "http" or "https" URI that does not include + a path component; these MUST include a ":path" pseudo-header field + with a value of '*' (see [RFC7230], Section 5.3.4). + +All HTTP/3 requests MUST include exactly one valid value for the ":method", Arguably, this language from 7540 permits it to also contain any number of invalid values. Worth rephrasing. -- 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/3352#pullrequestreview-344364325
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "malfo… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify and split the "m… Mike Bishop