Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



12.07.2011 12:14, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-07-12 11:09, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
Section 5.2.2, bullet 3, sub-bullet 4. When defining the ABNF for a
header, the header name should be included in it as well. So the first
line should be:
...

Why?
There is the following formulation:

The 'Foo' headers takes the form of <foo-header> ABNF rules below:

foo-header = *(APHA/DIGIT)

It should say: "The 'Foo' header field's value takes the form..."
This will eliminate the problem.  Currently we have:

The ABNF of this header is defined as follows:

not its entity.

will result in the message headers like:

Upgrade: TLS/1.2
Connection: Upgrade
gfr134

and "gfr134" will be the 'Foo' header. "foo-header = "Foo:"
*(APHA/DIGIT)" will result in valid:

Upgrade: TLS/1.2
Connection: Upgrade
Foo: gfr134

See also eg. RFC 3282, RFC 2616.

Have a look at the HTTPbis drafts.
They should also be clear about whether they mean the header field or the header field's entity.



[ . . . ]

That being said, it might be a good idea to revisit the choice of
syntax, or at least to clarify the LWS situation.
The document may reference the httpbis-p1 where the <n>#<m>rule
extension will be described for valid ABNF. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-15#section-1.2.1

It could, but my guess is that HyBi doesn't want to wait for HTTPbis.
That's up to them.

Mykyta

...

Best regards, Julian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]