On 04/12/2018 22:25, Tommy Pauly wrote:
On Dec 4, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Julian,
On 3 Dec 2018, at 1:51 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote:
s/[RFC7230], Section 5.7.1/Section 5.7.1 of [RFC7230]/
"tracking message forwards, avoiding request loops, and identifying
the protocol capabilities of senders along the request/response
chain."
In theory, Via could be used to identify these loops. However, in
practice it is not used in this fashion, because some HTTP servers
use Via for other purposes - in particular, some implementations
disable some HTTP/1.1 features when the Via header is present.
It would be nice if this came with pointers to related bug reports so the reader could have a glance.
2. The CDN-Loop Request Header Field
CDN-Loop: FooCDN, barcdn; host="foo123.bar.cdn"
CDN-Loop: baz-cdn; abc="123"; def="456", anotherCDN
Note that the token syntax does not allow whitespace, DQUOTE or any
of the characters "(),/:;<=>?@[]{}". See [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6.
s/. See [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6./([RFC7230], Section 3.2.6)./
Likewise, note the rules for when parameter values need to be quoted
in [RFC7231], Section 3.1.1.
s/[RFC7231], Section 3.1.1/Section 3.1.1 of [RFC7231]/
Is this just personal preference, or is there a reason you suggest this form? I see nothing about it in RFC7322.
In fact, RFC 7322 actually includes both styles of section reference:
Status of This Memo
... see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section
... see "IETF Policy on Character Sets
and Languages" [BCP18], Section 6, for more information.
I suggest we leave this document as-as and let RFC Editor to sort this
out. They are quite good at this.
