On 08/01/2016 12:38 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
I'll review the rest of your comments shortly, but you might want to review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3875 before claiming CGI isn't an HTTP input :-)
I suspect we're talking past each other at this point. I'm aware of 3875 (though I don't claim to be an expert), and I quoted it in my response. I am using the term "HTTP input" in response to your much earlier statement that
(We aren't talking about non-HTTP sources.)
We *are* talking about non-HTTP sources. CGI is *not* HTTP. It obviously shares a great deal of syntax, but a CGI application is neither an HTTP client nor an HTTP server, and it does not speak HTTP to our server. Therefore CGI is not an "HTTP input" and we are not bound by 723x's requirements for parsing date-stamps that originate from it -- which, IIUC, was your argument. The wisdom of doing so (or not) is a completely separate issue, outside the bounds of the spec.
If that is not your argument, then I've completely misunderstood, and we possibly agree with each other(?).
Conforming can either refer to eliding a header line that doesn't conform, or munging a header line to a usable value, we could interpret that either way.
Agreed. That's exactly my point; I'm not sure where the disagreement is coming from.
--Jacob
