On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 3:54 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> > wrote: > >> Right, though several people have requested it now as errata. Seems >> likely to be in the final update for STD. >> > > In the HttpProtocolOptions Unsafe mode, it is tolerated. > > Should it be the proper 'Strict' behavior to parse (never generate) such > noise? > FWIW, I see very little harm in potentially unsafe chunk headers because it becomes a serious chore to inject between alternating \r-only vs \n-only vs space trailing chunk headers. I'm not suggesting it can't be done, but most requests-with-body are intrinsically not idempotent, so one must be extremely clever to affect cache history. But it isn't impossible, so if the editors follow the way of BWS vs. follow the absolute explicit statements about HTTP request field names and the trailing ':', I'd be somewhat disappointed. Tighten ambiguity where there was little ambiguity before. Make explicit the real ambiguity for all user-agents and servers to implement. /shrug. Cheers, Bill
